Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am proud to stand with my colleague from Maine in offering this important amendment to the Budget Resolution. Senator Collins has been a leader in the area of higher education and she has contributed a great deal as a member of the Health, Education and Labor and Pensions Committee. Last year, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee reported and Congress passed the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. We adopted the conference report to accompany that bill by overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 96-0. Throughout the process, we were determined to craft legislation that offered students more opportunities. We kept our sights clearly focused on the goal of increasing educational opportunities for all our nation's students. We achieved our goal and as a result, students will receive significant benefits from the passage of that legislation. They will benefit from the lowest interest rate in 17 years on their new student loans. They will benefit from strengthened and improved student grant programs and campus based programs. They will benefit from the creation of a performance based organization housed in the Department of Education which will vastly improve the delivery of student financial aid. More of our nation's aspiring students will be prepared for and able to pursue higher education because of programs like TRIO and GEAR UP. Clearly, that bill went far in opening the door to all who dream of pursuing higher education. We have an opportunity today to take another step forward in meeting the goals that we set out in the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. The Sense of Senate offered by Senator Collins, myself and others follows the blueprint that we laid out during reauthorization and encourages the Appropriations Committee to increase funding for some of the most critical programs designed to help our neediest students succeed at the undergraduate level. Earlier this year I called for a $400 increase in the maximum Pell grant. The importance of this program cannot be overstated--it is the cornerstone of our federal investment in need-based grant aid. It has helped millions of young people obtain a degree. The Pell grant has made a positive difference in the lives of individual students who received it and it is has made a positive difference in the well being of our nation. Thanks to the Pell grant, more Americans have received a post secondary degree, the knowledge base of our nation has been expanded and the earnings base of our nation has increased. This Sense of the Senate also calls on Congress to increase funds for other programs that have as their goal increasing access to post secondary study for our nation's neediest students. The SEOG program, Perkins Loans, LEAP, Federal Work Study and TRIO all are targeted to provide additional assistance, both financial and educational, to students who really need it the most. These funds often times make the difference for a student between making it through school or dropping out. Therefore, our efforts today in support of these programs are critical. We are pleased to have the support of nearly all the major higher education groups on this amendment. These organizations represent the students and institutions and they have a deep, first-hand understanding of how important this federal investment is to today's undergraduate students. I applaud my colleague from Maine, Ms. Collins for her contributions to the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 and for the effort she is making today. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Subcommittee on Public Health will be held on, March 25, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Bioterrorism. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the situation in Kosovo is cause for grave concern to all of us. One cannot read the press reports flooding out of Kosovo for the past many months and not be moved. The suffering of the people of Kosovo is tragic, and the potential for this conflict to spread and to destabilize the entire region is very real. Something must be done. But before we commit ourselves to military action, we must be sure that any action we undertake has a good chance of achieving our primary objectives. I am concerned about the current course of action as outlined by the President and Secretary of Defense Cohen. I agree that we need to be part of a NATO effort to resolve the current impasse and put an end to the fighting. But we should not be contributing ground troops to that effort. Our European allies must take the lead on the ground, and we should support that effort with our superior air power and intelligence operations. Just as we take the lead on problems in this hemisphere, it is important that Europe take the lead in Kosovo. The airwaves are now heavy with the talk of impending air strikes against Serbia following Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic's final rejection of the proposed peace plan. Milosevic refuses to allow NATO troops on Yugoslav soil, even though NATO has agreed that Kosovo should remain a province of Yugoslav and the Kosovar Albanians have signed on to the peace deal. The United States has put a great deal of effort into trying to achieve a political settlement in Kosovo. We have taken the lead in the negotiations, and the personal intervention of Secretary Albright, Ambassador Holbrooke and Former Senator Bob Dole has done much to advance the cause. But Milosovic remains intransigent and the violence continues to escalate. Both sides are now poised for an all-out military offensive. And United States-led air strikes against targets in Serbia are imminent. I am uncomfortable with the tactic of launching a major military bombing campaign in order to force someone to the peace table. For two reasons, one, it rarely works; and two, real peace will only come when both sides realize they have more to gain by setting aside the military option. If they do not really want peace, there is little we can do to force them into it. Targeted air strikes without a synchronized campaign on the ground are unlikely to make a serious change in the strategic situation in Kosovo. Stopping a large-scale Serbian offensive for anything more than a short period of time is extremely difficult if one's only tool is a stand-off air campaign. However, we must do something and do it soon. But our action must be with the equal participation of our European allies, with each partner contributing what they do best. In our case, that is aerial control and intelligence collection and analysis. I would not oppose that kind of American participation in a closely coordinated operation led by our European allies where the objectives, duration and methodology were clearly explained to Congress and the American people. I believe this is the only operation likely to meet with success in the long run. And we have no time to waste! Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will eliminate unnecessary distinctions drawn by the Internal Revenue Code in the tax treatment of payments received by people who open their homes to care for foster children and adults. Currently, the law allows an exclusion from income for foster care payments received by some providers, while denying eligibility for the exclusion to other providers. My bill expands the law's exclusion for foster care payments. By simplifying the tax treatment of foster care payments, the bill will remove the inequities and uncertainties inherent in the current tax treatment. Under current law, foster care providers are permitted to deduct expenditures incurred for the care of foster individuals. Providers must maintain detailed records to substantiate these deductions. In lieu of this detailed record keeping, section 131 of the Internal Revenue Code allows certain foster care providers to exclude from income the payments they receive 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 providers to exclude payments when a State (or one of its political subdivisions) or a charitable tax-exempt placement agency places the individual in foster care and makes the foster care payments. For persons age 19 and older, section 131 permits providers to exclude foster care payments only when a State (or one of its political subdivisions) places the individual and makes the payments. This bill will simplify these anachronistic tax rules by expanding the tax code's exclusion to include foster care payments for all persons in foster care, regardless of age. The exclusion will also be available when the foster care placement is made by a private foster care placement agency and even when foster care payments are received through a private foster care placement agency, rather than directly from a State (or one of its political subdivisions). To ensure appropriate oversight, the bill requires that the placement agency be either licensed by, or certified by, a State or a political subdivision thereof. A qualified foster care payment under this bill must be made pursuant to a foster care program of a State or a political subdivision thereof. My intention is for this bill to cover the wide variety of foster care programs developed by States, some of which are part of larger State programs designed to provide a variety of home- and community-based services to individuals. These foster care 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 providers ensure that foster children or 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 under their care with intellectual stimulation and emotional support that is all too often lacking in institutional or large congregate settings. In some States, the State itself (or a political subdivision) 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 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. The bill is intended to cover both those 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, typically through a State's Medicaid Home and Community-Based Waiver program approved by the federal government under 42 U.S.C. section 1396n(c). While foster care for children has been in existence for decades, foster care for adults is a more recent phenomenon. Sometimes referred to as ``host homes'' or ``developmental homes,'' adult foster care facilities have proven to be an effective alternative to institutional care for adults with disabilities. My home State of Vermont has been at the forefront of efforts to develop individualized alternatives to institutional care. In 1993, Vermont closed the state institution for people with developmental disabilities. Vermont has chosen to rely on foster families, so that people with developmental disabilities can live in homes and participate in the regular routines of life that most of us take for granted. The foster care model has provided people with disabilities a cost-effective opportunity for successful lives in communities, with valued relationships with their foster families that have developed over time. Vermont authorizes local developmental service providers to act as placement agencies and to contract with families willing to provide foster care in their homes. The tax law's disparate tax treatment of foster care payments 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. For providers receiving payments from private agencies, however, the exclusion is not available (unless the individual in foster care is under age 19 and the placement agency is a nonprofit organization). Because of the complexity of current law, providers often receive conflicting advice from tax professionals regarding the proper tax treatment of foster care payments they receive. In addition, these rules discourage willing families from providing foster care in their homes to persons placed by private placement agencies, thus reducing the availability of care alternatives. Mr. President, this bill will advance the development of family-based foster care services, a highly valued alternative to institutionalization. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will eliminate unnecessary distinctions drawn by the Internal Revenue Code in the tax treatment of payments received by people who open their homes to care for foster children and adults. Currently, the law allows an exclusion from income for foster care payments received by some providers, while denying eligibility for the exclusion to other providers. My bill expands the law's exclusion for foster care payments. By simplifying the tax treatment of foster care payments, the bill will remove the inequities and uncertainties inherent in the current tax treatment. Under current law, foster care providers are permitted to deduct expenditures incurred for the care of foster individuals. Providers must maintain detailed records to substantiate these deductions. In lieu of this detailed record keeping, section 131 of the Internal Revenue Code allows certain foster care providers to exclude from income the payments they receive 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 providers to exclude payments when a State (or one of its political subdivisions) or a charitable tax-exempt placement agency places the individual in foster care and makes the foster care payments. For persons age 19 and older, section 131 permits providers to exclude foster care payments only when a State (or one of its political subdivisions) places the individual and makes the payments. This bill will simplify these anachronistic tax rules by expanding the tax code's exclusion to include foster care payments for all persons in foster care, regardless of age. The exclusion will also be available when the foster care placement is made by a private foster care placement agency and even when foster care payments are received through a private foster care placement agency, rather than directly from a State (or one of its political subdivisions). To ensure appropriate oversight, the bill requires that the placement agency be either licensed by, or certified by, a State or a political subdivision thereof. A qualified foster care payment under this bill must be made pursuant to a foster care program of a State or a political subdivision thereof. My intention is for this bill to cover the wide variety of foster care programs developed by States, some of which are part of larger State programs designed to provide a variety of home- and community-based services to individuals. These foster care 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 providers ensure that foster children or 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 under their care with intellectual stimulation and emotional support that is all too often lacking in institutional or large congregate settings. In some States, the State itself (or a political subdivision) 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 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. The bill is intended to cover both those 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, typically through a State's Medicaid Home and Community-Based Waiver program approved by the federal government under 42 U.S.C. section 1396n(c). While foster care for children has been in existence for decades, foster care for adults is a more recent phenomenon. Sometimes referred to as ``host homes'' or ``developmental homes,'' adult foster care facilities have proven to be an effective alternative to institutional care for adults with disabilities. My home State of Vermont has been at the forefront of efforts to develop individualized alternatives to institutional care. In 1993, Vermont closed the state institution for people with developmental disabilities. Vermont has chosen to rely on foster families, so that people with developmental disabilities can live in homes and participate in the regular routines of life that most of us take for granted. The foster care model has provided people with disabilities a cost-effective opportunity for successful lives in communities, with valued relationships with their foster families that have developed over time. Vermont authorizes local developmental service providers to act as placement agencies and to contract with families willing to provide foster care in their homes. The tax law's disparate tax treatment of foster care payments 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. For providers receiving payments from private agencies, however, the exclusion is not available (unless the individual in foster care is under age 19 and the placement agency is a nonprofit organization). Because of the complexity of current law, providers often receive conflicting advice from tax professionals regarding the proper tax treatment of foster care payments they receive. In addition, these rules discourage willing families from providing foster care in their homes to persons placed by private placement agencies, thus reducing the availability of care alternatives. Mr. President, this bill will advance the development of family-based foster care services, a highly valued alternative to institutionalization. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the spectrum of emerging missile threats to our national security cannot be ignored. I am very concerned about the implications of the North Korean missile recently launched over Japan. Research and testing on similar missile systems likely continue in Iran, Iraq, China, and other countries. These circumstances suggest that the Senate should carefully consider our ability to appropriately counter these threats. I am concerned, however, that the existing national missile defense (NMD) technology has not yet proven to be effective, could be very expensive to deploy and has the potential to adversely affect Anti- Ballistic Missile treaty negotiations with Russia. These concerns should serve to caution us against premature deployment of NMD systems. However, I am now satisfied that amendments to the bill address these concerns. One amendment makes funding for deployment subject to the annual appropriations process and therefore up to Congress to set the appropriate level each year. Another amendment provides that the United States will continue to seek reductions in Russian nuclear forces, and the Administration now states that it can move cautiously on deployment so as to stay within our commitments to the ABM treaty. The bill has consequently become a policy guiding deployment, rather than a decision to deploy. I have long supported a full program of research, testing and development and resisted a premature decision to deploy. I hope that research will lead to some technological breakthroughs or ways to counter ballistic missiles. Their proliferation, especially in the hands of irresponsible leaders such as North Korea's Kim Jung II, requires that we actively investigate possible defenses, but we must not rush to build, at great cost, the first system that passes a flight test. There is still a great deal of research and development work to be done. The fledgling NMD systems now being contemplated for deployment simply do not compare in priority to many of our other military needs, such as our need to immediately recruit, train and retain quality men and women for our military. This is why the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights, the military pay, education and benefits bill, was the first major legislation considered this session, and it swiftly passed the Senate with overwhelming support. Well- educated Americans in uniform comprise the foundation upon which we maintain the strong defense of this country. While the Senate unanimously agreed on the urgency of enacting this legislation, it still has found no way to pay for it. In my mind this takes priority over deployment of expensive and unproven NMD technology. Given the competing demands on our finite budget and the high costs to deploy a NMD system, we cannot afford to get it wrong. I hope that this vote will not be seen as endorsement of a rush to deployment, but rather a set of policy guidelines governing an eventual decision to deploy. I will do what I can to ensure this ultimate decision is not made in haste.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Tuesday, March 16, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``Educating the Disadvantaged.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a Executive Session of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Wednesday, March 17, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The Committee will consider S. 326, ``Patient's Bill of Rights Act.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/ 224-5375.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am going to now ask for a voice vote on Lott amendment numbered 68. This is basically the same amendment we have been voting on. I think I talked to the other side of the aisle and they have no reason not to have a voice vote. At this point, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on Lott amendment No. 68.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me explain this amendment. Like the previous Lott amendment, this would amend the class size reduction provisions of the fiscal year 1999 Department of Education Appropriations Act to expand the choices available to local school officials. They would have the opportunity to determine whether hiring teachers or educating children with disabilities is a greater need in the schools and spend the additional funds accordingly. I am sure that many areas will choose to hire teachers, although I strongly suspect that most communities in my home State would choose to use their funds for IDEA, special education. If a locality has a plentiful supply of unemployed qualified teachers and lacks only the funds to hire them, that locale will use the $1.2 billion to hire teachers. If that is not the case, those funds will be put to better use by supporting existing efforts to educate special education students. I urge my colleagues support this amendment. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is an amendment which I think everyone would agree is an appropriate amendment regarding the rules with respect to discipline and carrying a weapon into a school. A decision was made, that the law only applied to those individuals who carried a weapon to the school. But, if the weapon was in the possession of someone within the school, the law did not apply. This would make sure that possession, as well as carrying it in, is a violation. That is why I will obviously support the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 68

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will likely oppose this amendment because, again, this will be reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Actually, this program is already part of the law in a way. It is the 21st Century Schools program I got in in 1994. The administration has, by regulation, kind of changed it into an afterschool program. I do not mind that, but I think the 21st Century Schools was much broader and a better program. We can argue this out, and we will have hearings on it and evidence presented during the next few weeks and months. At this point, I would have to oppose the Boxer amendment, and eventually, after time runs out, I will move to table it. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, again, I just reiterate, this is not the time to be arguing about this. The time is with reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Therefore, I would strongly urge Members of both sides to vote against this amendment. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS. The amendment we have now is Lott No. 67. Fulfilling a promise is not as exciting as raising new expectations with new programs. We don't get much press coverage, presumably, for doing the right thing, but if we fulfill our obligation to fund IDEA, State and local agencies will be able to target their own resources toward their own, very real needs. These may be needs for afterschool activities, or for dropouts, or for any number of the pressing needs facing our Nation. All of this is going to be discussed in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. With that, Mr. President, I will yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. This is the Lott amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask to vitiate the yeas and nays.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me explain what we intend to do on this side of the aisle. I intend to arrange for a voice vote on the next two amendments. They are Lott amendments. They are very similar to the ones that we had before. I do not believe it is worthy of time to get votes on those, because that dye is well cast by the previous vote. Amendment No. 67

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is very similar to the amendment we previously voted on, referred to as the Lott-Jeffords amendment. The pending amendment would amend the class size reduction provisions of the fiscal year 1999 Department of Education Appropriations Act to expand the choices available to local school officials. They would have the opportunity to determine whether hiring teachers or educating children with disabilities is a greater need for their schools, and to spend the additional funds accordingly. I am sure that many areas would choose to hire teachers, although I strongly suspect that most communities in my home State would choose to use their funds for IDEA. A number of small States are already at the level of teachers they need, but we are grossly underfunded in taking care of our special needs children. I have heard many times during my trips home, that the current level of funding for IDEA falls far short of the 40 percent we promised in 1975. Full funding of IDEA would offer local school officials the flexibility in their budgets to develop dropout prevention or other programs that best meet the needs of their communities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am reluctant to oppose this amendment because I have such great empathy and sympathy for the problem, and, because I respect the Senator from New Mexico a great deal. We have worked together on so many programs and problems over the years, and we will continue to do so. And I respect his judgment. However, to address this issue at this time is not appropriate. This is a program already in existence, though obviously, not working well. The program is within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am dedicated to working closely with the Senator from New Mexico to find out how and what we should do to amend existing programs in order to have better dropout programs. So I hope he would understand that, and that by opposing this amendment, which I will move to table eventually, I am not doing anything other than saying wait--wait until we go through the reauthorization of the ESEA this year. We are going to hold hearings and make sure we do the best thing possible to solve the dropout problem. Right now, I cannot accept this amendment. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. This is a very important issue for me, but not nearly as important as it is to the parents of the nearly 24 million school- age children who need care while their parents work. The issue of how best to meet the needs of school-aged children and youth will be addressed--not just in the context of one program, like the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act, but within the framework of a comprehensive, cohesive review of Federal public education policy.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I want to thank Senator Dodd for helping us move the educational flexibility legislation along. I want to assure him and my Senate colleagues that the withdrawal of Senator Dodd's amendment does not signal the end of the Senate debate on school-aged child care, but the beginning of our work. Senator Dodd has been a leader on child care and other youth issues for his entire congressional career. He has continually worked to craft effective legislation that will help children and their families, and I appreciate his tireless efforts. By working together, I have little doubt that we can greatly improve the Federal Government's response to the needs of school-aged children and their families.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee, the sponsor of the bill.