Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act. This bill will give all our nations' veterans the freedom to choose where they receive their medical care. I am joined by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senators Specter and Rockefeller, as well as Senators Thurmond, Murkowski, Campbell, Craig, Hutchinson, McCain, Snowe, Daschle, Graham, Akaka, Wellstone, Murray, Hollings, Cleland, Landrieu, Johnson, and my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy. Known to some as ``Medicare Subvention,'' this legislation will authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to set up 10 pilot sites around the country where Medicare-eligible Veterans could get Medicare-covered services at a Veterans hospital. The VA would then be reimbursed at a slightly reduced rate for provision of those services. Many Medicare-eligible veterans want to receive their care at a VA facility. This bill would allow certain veterans that option. My legislation would implement a pilot project that is eagerly sought by both the Veterans Administration and the Veterans Service Organizations. Veterans want the right to choose where they get their Medicare-covered services. Many of them would like to go to a Veterans Administration facility where they would feel more comfortable. We want to make that option possible for those who have given so much of themselves in service to their country. Our legislation starts with a 10-site demonstration project, limiting total Medicare reimbursements to $50 million annually. The VA is required to maintain its current level of effort, and provisions in the bill prevent it from shifting any current costs to the Medicare Trust Fund. In the event that the demonstration project in any way increased Medicare's costs, the VA would reimburse Medicare for these costs and suspend or terminate the program. An independent auditor would monitor the demonstration project annually and make reports to Congress on its findings. A final report to Congress three and a half years after commencement of the project from the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services would recommend whether to terminate, continue or expand the program. Almost two years ago, Senator Rockefeller and I successfully included similar legislation in the 1997 Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act. The full Senate endorsed this measure. Unfortunately, our amendment was later dropped in conference. But we feel strongly that now is the time to enact this legislation. Veterans want and deserve this option, and the VA should be allowed to become a Medicare provider. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Veterans Administration have already reached an agreement on how such a program would be implemented. It's time for us to give this project the green light. In 1997 the Department of Defense Medicare Subvention program alleviated what our country's military retirees call a ``lockout'' from the military health care system. This bill will finish the job by allowing all our veterans access to the best and most appropriate health care facility of their choosing. Our nation's veterans deserve no less. I look forward to working with the Senate Finance Committee, Secretary West and the Administration, the Veterans Service Organizations and my colleagues here and in the House to get this legislation signed into law this year.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I understand that S.J. Res. 11, which was introduced earlier today by Senator Smith of New Hampshire, is at the desk, and I ask that it be read for the first time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I now ask for its second reading, and I would object to my own request.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 24. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 4, the military bill of rights act.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I further ask unanimous consent that the time until 9:45 a.m. be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member, and following that debate the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the Sarbanes-Warner amendment regarding civilian pay, to be followed immediately by a vote on or in relation to the Cleland amendment regarding Thrift Savings. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be in order to the Warner and Cleland amendments prior to the votes.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:30 and, following a short period of debate, will proceed to the two back-to-back rollcall votes. The first vote on or in relation to the Sarbanes-Warner amendment will occur at 9:45 a.m., to be immediately followed by a rollcall vote on or in relation to the Cleland amendment. Following those votes, the Senate will continue consideration of S. 4. Rollcall votes are expected throughout Wednesday's session and into the evening as the Senate attempts to complete action on the bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

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 Wednesday, February 24, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Privacy Under a Microscope: Balancing the Needs of Research and Confidentiality. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

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, February 23, 1999, 8:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Education Reform: Governors' Views. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on indian affairs

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have long been a strong advocate for a well-educated American work-force. Vermont's quality of life is related closely to the educational opportunities available to her citizens. Education is a cornerstone of our healthy economy. These same notions apply with similar effect to our men and women in the military. Modern, technologically advanced systems and complex missions depend on the skills and wisdom of well-educated personnel. S. 4 modestly enhances the educational opportunities for our men and women on active duty. It should do the same for the members of our Guard and Reserve. Consequently, I strongly urge my fellow Senators to support the three education-related amendments which Senator Cleland and I will be offering to S. 4, the appropriately named ``Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights.'' It is appropriate because one's use of the term ``Bill of Rights'' invariably suggests the concepts of fairness and equity. Perhaps Secretary of Defense William Cohen had this in the back of his mind in September of 1997 when he instructed the Department of Defense to eliminate ``all residual barriers, structural and cultural'' to effective integration of the Guard, Reserve and Active Components into a ``seamless Total Force.'' Precisely one year later his Deputy, John Hamre, looked back to that day and observed: We have made great progress integrating our active and Reserve forces into one team, trained and ready for the 21st century. Our military leaders are getting the message. Structural and cultural barriers that reduce readiness and impedes interoperability between active and Reserve personnel are gradually being eliminated. We must now assess the progress we have made, acknowledge those barriers to integration that still exist, and, most importantly, set our plans into motion. If these wise words are to have full effect we must work to rectify an oversight in S. 4, which, as written, enhances educational benefits for a portion of our seamless Total Force but neglects the remainder. Consequently, to promote parity among all components of our military I will be offering the following three amendments: The first: Allow members of the Guard and Reserve the ability to accelerate payments of educational assistance in the same manner currently provided in S. 4 to the Active Duty military. The second: Allow members of the Guard and Reserve the ability to transfer their entitlement to educational assistance to their family members in the same manner currently provided in S. 4 to the Active Duty military. The third: Allow members of the Guard and Reserve who have served at least ten years in the Selected Reserve, an eligibility period of five years after separation from the military to use their entitlement to educational benefits. (Active duty military members have a ten year period.) Just a few weeks ago, four Reserve Component members lost their lives when their KC-135 went down in Germany while flying active duty missions for the Air Force. Death did not discriminate between Active and Reserve Components. Nor should S. 4. The opportunity to face this ultimate risk will only increase as we do place greater demands on our Guard and Reserve units to participate in our global missions. Since Operation Desert Storm the pace of operations has swelled by more than 300% for the Guard alone and is widely expected to climb higher. We all know the value of the Guard and Reserve for missions close to home. In Vermont they saved our citizens from the drastic effects of record setting ice storms last winter. Recently, other units helped with hurricanes in Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina. They assist our citizens during droughts and blizzards. They enrich our communities with Youth Challenge programs and they conduct an ongoing war on drugs. Just last year we added protection of the U.S. from weapons of mass destruction to that list, and the list keeps growing. It is now time to bring their educational benefits in balance. As many of you know, I believe in the value of life-long learning to our society. Access to continuing education has become an essential component to one's advancement through all stages of modern careers. S. 4 modestly improves this access for our brave men and women on active duty. It should do the same for our Guard and Reserves. I urge my colleagues to help bring parity, equity and fairness to the educational opportunities available to all components of our military. The Guard and Reserve have been called upon increasingly to contribute to the Total Force. They face similar challenges to recruiting and retention. They should have similar access to educational opportunities. Mr. President, let me now turn to another important amendment Senator Cleland and I will be introducing. Specifically, we propose allowing our men and women in the Guard and Reserve the opportunity to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) in the same manner S. 4 provides to their colleagues on active duty. Allowing members of the Guard and Reserve to participate in the Federal Employees TSP is long overdue and I strongly support the proposal to make it law. This program is good for federal workers and it would benefit members of the Guard and Reserve financially for them to participate in the TSP. Under this system, they would be the sole contributors to their accounts, much like civil servants who are under the old Civil Service Retirement System. Since there would be no federal match to their accounts the cost would be very low to the branches of the military and to the taxpayers, as well. Additional savings in individual accounts will be important to those individuals who serve our nation in regular, but temporary capacities. The payroll deduction feature of the TSP is an easy way to save. The accounts are managed prudently by the Thrift Savings Board. Participation in the system is high and satisfaction with it is also very high. Those of us on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committees have been spending quite a bit of energy trying to encourage Americans to save more money. As a New Englander, I speak for my constituents when I say that we know a lot about THRIFT. This is a good amendment that will encourage thrift and I hope my colleagues will support it. Given that our Guard and Reserve are shouldering an increasing share of our world-wide missions, they should have the same savings opportunity that S. 4 gives to the active duty. Now is the time to ensure that our reserve component personnel are not overlooked.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. On January 7, 1999, the House of Representatives presented the Senate with two articles of impeachment against President William Jefferson Clinton. The articles charged the President with lying under oath before a federal grand jury and with obstruction of justice. In the days following the House's presentation of the articles, many have criticized the Senate for continuing on where the House left off. They argue that if there are not enough votes in the Senate to remove the President, then the Senate should not have bothered proceeding with the trial. While this may seem like a reasonable way of disposing of an unpopular process, the Senate has a Constitutional duty to hold an impeachment trial. Although the Constitution provides little guidance, one thing was clear: In order to fulfill this duty, we had to come together as a body and proceed in a manner that was judicious, deliberative and fair. That meant that before the Senate could make any decision on the articles of impeachment, each side had to be given the opportunity to present its case. Now that we have heard from the House Managers, the President's counsel and viewed the deposition testimony of three key witnesses, it is the appropriate time to render judgment on the articles of impeachment. I must state at the outset that this has been one of the most difficult experiences that I have endured in my 23 years in Congress. A. A Loss of Respect. This process has been distressing on a personal level because I came into it with a great deal of respect and admiration for President Clinton. Over the past six years, we have enjoyed a good working relationship. While we do not share the same party and we often approach issues from different points of view, the President and I have worked together on a number of important projects. Given my esteem for the President, I have been saddened and gravely disappointed by much of what I have learned over the last few weeks. Whatever the final outcome, I will leave this trial with the knowledge that the President has indeed committed shameful acts, misled the American people and brought disrepute on the office of Presidency. By his own actions, he has ensured himself a place in history alongside President Andrew Johnson. B. Setting An Important Precedent. This process has been trying on a professional level because I recognize the enormous historical significance of my decisions. This trial will establish precedents to examine and judge the conduct of all future Presidents. While our founding fathers clearly intended impeachment for only the greatest offenses, confronted with a series of tawdry acts, the facts and circumstances do not neatly fit into the definition of ``other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' I am gravely concerned that a vote to convict the President on these articles may establish a low threshold that would make every President subject to removal for the slightest indiscretion or imperil every President who faces a Congress controlled by the opposing party. Yet, at the same time, I am concerned that a vote of acquittal could be mistaken by future generations to mean that perjury and obstruction of justice are not impeachable offenses. II. Have the House Managers Proven the Articles of Impeachment? A. The Standard of Proof: Clear and Convincing Evidence The Constitution provides very little guidance to the Senate for its trying of the impeachment of the President. There is absolutely no reference at all to the standard of proof that senators shall use when evaluating the Articles of Impeachment. I believe the fact that the Framers gave this body the duty to try an impeachment, but no guidance as to what standard of proof to use in the trial, gives each senator the discretion to select the standard he or she deems appropriate. In making my decision, I have focused on the nature of the proceeding; The impeachment trial is a unique process, it is neither criminal nor civil. I also focused on the purpose of the proceeding; The Senate holds an impeachment trial to determine whether there is proof that the President's misconduct rises to the level which demonstrates that he or she is no longer fit to hold office. Given the nature and purpose of an impeachment trial, I have decided that the ``preponderance of the evidence'' standard would not be appropriate as being too low a standard. On the other hand, I believe that ``proof beyond a reasonable doubt'' would raise too high a standard. The question we must ask ourselves is: Do the President's actions demonstrate that he is unfit to serve, thus warranting his removal in order to protect the public? Since we are concerned with the public's protection I would suggest that the clear and convincing standard, which lies somewhere in between, would be more appropriate to make the very fateful decision of removing the President from office. Accordingly, I have used the clear and convincing evidence standard to judge the impeachment charges against President Clinton. I understand that this standard is little used, however, I feel that in impeachment trials it is most appropriate to use a standard that is somewhere in between the extremes. B. Article I: Perjury Before the Grand Jury. Article I alleges that the President provided perjurious false and misleading testimony before the federal grand jury. The House Managers applied the federal perjury statute found at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1623 to the President's testimony. The elements of perjury are met when: (1) while under oath (2) one knowingly (3) makes a false statement as to (4) material facts. While I agree that some of the President's statements before the federal grand jury were false and misleading, I have concluded that some of the allegations simply do not rise to the level of perjury and that the House Managers have not proven the remaining perjury charges by clear and convincing evidence. The first allegation is that the President committed perjury before the grand jury when he testified about the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In his testimony before the grand jury, the President admitted that his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was ongoing and that it involved inappropriate intimate contact. Based on the House Managers' presentation, there is no doubt in my mind that the President's prepared statement to the grand jury was inaccurate in part. While I disagree with the House Managers' conclusion that the President's use of the terms ``on certain occasions'' and ``occasional'' were intentionally misleading, I agree with the House Managers that the President lied about when and how his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky began. However, given that the President admitted to the key issue before the grand jury, I am not persuaded that lies about these immaterial details justify a charge of perjury. I also reject the related allegations pertaining to the President's testimony regarding the definition of sexual relations used in the Jones case. The second allegation of this Article is that the President committed perjury in his grand jury testimony by repeating the perjurious answers he had given in his civil deposition. The House Managers have certainly proven that the President lied about a number of issues in his civil deposition. However, Article I concerns the President's grand jury testimony, not his deposition testimony and the House Managers seem to rely upon the President's reaffirmation of his deposition testimony as proof that he committed perjury. Since I do not find that the President reaffirmed his deposition testimony before the grand jury, I reject this allegation of perjury. The third allegation is essentially that the President committed perjury when he testified before the grand jury that he was not paying attention to Mr. Bennett's misstatement that the Lewinsky affidavit meant that ``there was no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form.'' Although the video tape of the President's civil deposition does show the President staring in Mr. Bennett's direction, we cannot know what the President was actually thinking at that time. We have all had moments where we appear to be paying attention to a speaker, when we are actually lost in our own thoughts. Because the House Managers could not possibly prove whether or not the President was actually paying attention to the exchange, they have not met the burden of proving that the President's testimony was false. The final allegation in Article I is that the President testified falsely about his attempts to obstruct justice in the Jones case. I reject this perjury allegation outright because I believe it was improper for the House Managers to include a restatement of the obstruction of justice allegations within Article I. I have considered the obstruction of justice allegations in Article II. C. Article II: Obstruction of Justice The second article of impeachment charges the President with obstruction of justice. Article II charges that the President prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice, both personally and through his subordinates and agents, in a Federal civil rights action. To prove a case of obstruction of justice under the Federal statute found at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1503, the House Managers must prove that the President acted with intent and that he ``endeavored to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of justice.'' After considering these allegations, I have concluded that the House Managers failed to prove all but one of the obstruction of justice charges. My basis for this conclusion is the following: The first allegation in Article II is that the President obstructed justice by having his friend Vernon Jordan assist Ms. Lewinsky in her New York job search in exchange for her silence in the Jones case. To prove this allegation, the House Managers presented compelling circumstantial evidence that Mr. Jordan assisted Ms. Lewinsky with both her job search and with her affidavit. The House Managers also pointed to the fact that Ms. Lewinsky received her job offer just two days after she signed a false affidavit. However, there are also circumstantial facts that belie the ``quid pro quo'' claim. First, there is evidence that the President enlisted Mr. Jordan's help well before Ms. Lewinsky's name appeared on the Jones witness list. Second, Mr. Jordan testified in his Senate deposition that he had ``stepped up'' the job search before he learned that Ms. Lewinsky was involved. On a final note, a conspiracy takes two willing actors. I would have a hard time convicting the President of this charge when both Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky have denied that there was any connection between the job search and the false affidavit. Another allegation is that the President obstructed justice by encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit in the Jones case. The House Managers have shown that when the President informed Ms. Lewinsky that her name had appeared on the Jones witness list, he suggested that she might file an affidavit to avoid being deposed. To find that the President obstructed justice, however, I must infer from the evidence that the President was encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit. I cannot make this leap when Ms. Lewinsky herself testified that President Clinton made no connection between their false cover stories and the contents of the affidavit. Indeed, Ms. Lewinsky testified repeatedly that the President never discussed the contents of the affidavit with her and that, at the time of their conversation, she did not think that the affidavit necessarily had to be false. Article II also alleges that the President obstructed justice by encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to hide his gifts. The thrust of the House Managers claim is that the President instructed Ms. Currie to pick up the gifts from Monica Lewinsky on December 28, 1997, so that Ms. Lewinsky would not have to turn the gifts over to Paula Jones' attorneys. I would agree that the circumstances of the President's secretary, Ms. Currie picking up the gifts several hours after Ms. Lewinsky suggested to the President that Ms. Currie might hold onto them for safekeeping are certainly suspect. If the House Managers could prove that Ms. Currie initiated the gift pickup there would be clear and convincing evidence that the President was in fact encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to hide the gifts. Because there is conflicting evidence on this critical issue, the House Managers did not meet their burden. In addition, Article II alleges that the President obstructed justice by making false and misleading statement to his aides about Ms. Lewinsky. Given that the President had an ongoing relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, it was spurious, mean spirited, defamatory and morally wrong for the President to refer to Ms. Lewinsky as a stalker or to in any way impugn her reputation. The House Managers and all of us have every reason to be incensed by the President's actions. That being said, it is clear that the President made these remarks in his continuing effort to conceal the true nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. There is no evidence that the President knew that these aides would be called to testify. Therefore, I believe that this allegation has no merit. While I found the other charges alleged in Article II to be either legally or factually deficient, there is one allegation of obstruction of justice which I believe that the House Managers have proven by clear and convincing evidence; the President's post-deposition statements to Bettie Currie. Ms. Currie testified that on two occasions in the days following the President's deposition in the Jones case, the President called her into his office and made a series of remarks to her ``You were always there when she was there, right? We were never alone. You could see and hear everything. Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right? She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that.'' I simply do not believe the President's explanation that he was questioning Ms. Currie in an ``effort get as much information as quickly as I could'' or that he was ``trying to ascertain what the facts were'' or ``what Ms. Currie's perception was.'' I am also not persuaded by the fact that Ms. Currie testified that she did not feel pressured to agree with the President. Rather, I agree with the House Managers that if the President was actually seeking information he would not have been asking rhetorical questions. I also believe that the President's explanation would be more plausible if his statements to Ms. Currie were not false. The fact is that the President gave false testimony in the Jones deposition, that during his deposition he repeatedly referred to Ms. Currie as someone who could back up his testimony and that immediately following the deposition he summoned Ms. Currie into work on a Sunday and cleverly spoon-fed his cover stories to her. Despite the President's counsel's protestation, there was still a possibility that Ms. Currie could be called to testify in the Jones case. Accordingly, I believe that when the President called Ms. Currie to his office and repeatedly recounted these false statements he ``endeavored to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of justice'' in violation of the federal obstruction statute. III. Has President Clinton Committed a High Crime Warranting His Removal from Office? A. To Decide Whether the President's Actions are a High Crime, We Must Look at the Underlying Circumstances. The House Managers has left us with the impression that once we conclude that the President has committed either perjury or obstruction of justice, we have a Constitutional duty to vote to remove the President from office. They maintain that perjury and obstruction of justice must be considered high crimes per se because they carry the same penalties as bribery. I reject this premise. In fact, the severity of a bribery sentence is dependent on subject matter and the amount of the bribe. Similarly, a conclusion that the President committed obstruction of justice should not automatically warrant his removal. It is incumbent upon each of us to examine the underlying facts and circumstances to determine whether or not the President has committed a high crime. B. Background: How Did We Get Here Anyway? Now, having found that the President is guilty of obstructing justice in the Paula Jones case, I had to determine whether the violation is a ``high crime'' warranting removal from office. This led me to think about what justice was actually being obstructed and to consider the underlying circumstances that brought us here today. In the narrow legal sense, this entire impeachment trial rests on the Independent Counsel statute and the Paula Jones case. As many of my colleagues remember, Congress enacted the Independent Counsel statute in the wake of the Watergate scandal, after President Nixon ordered the dismissal of special Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox over his refusal to drop a subpoena for Nixon's incriminating White House tapes. Congress designed the Independent Counsel statute to insulate and protect investigations of alleged criminal conduct by the President and other high-level federal officials. Unfortunately, the statute has not worked as Congress envisioned it would. This well intended statute has resulted in a proliferation of interminable, expensive investigations against public officials. It has cost our taxpayers more than $130 million and considering all the time, effort and expense, there have been very few successful prosecutions resulting from the statute. One such investigation under the statute originated in August 1994, when Judge Kenneth Starr was appointed as an Independent Counsel to investigate alleged wrongful acts in the so-called Whitewater land deal. During the course of the next four years, the Office of Independent Counsel (``OIC'') expanded its investigation of President Clinton a number of times. At the same time, the President was defending a civil rights action by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee who alleged that President Clinton sexually harassed her during the time he served as Governor. Last January, the OIC was able to expand its investigation and redirect its D.C. based Whitewater Grand Jury panel to investigate the President's concealment of his extramarital affair with White House employee Monica Lewinsky. We must not forget that the reason that the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was even an issue in the Jones suit was because Paula Jones was trying to show that the President's treatment of Ms. Jones was part of a pattern and practice of sexual harassment. Judge Wright initially ruled that Paula Jones was entitled to information on the so- called Jane Does, because that evidence might help establish the President's pattern of sexually harassing conduct. However, Judge Wright ultimately ruled that evidence about the President's harassment of other women would not change her decision to dismiss the case because Paula Jones failed to establish that she, herself was harassed. I quote from the Judge's April 1, 1998 decision: One final matter concerns alleged suppression of pattern and practice evidence. Whatever relevance such evidence may have to prove other elements of plaintiff's case, it does not have anything to do with the issues presented by the President's motion for summary judgment, i.e., whether plaintiff herself was the victim of alleged quid pro quo or hostile work environment sexual harassment. . . . Whether other woman may have been subjected to workplace harassment, and whether such evidence has allegedly been suppressed, does not change the fact that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury. [emphasis added] Why is this ruling so important in my decision? Well, we are essentially here today because the Whitewater investigation was expanded to determine whether President Clinton's efforts to conceal his consensual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky obstructed Paula Jones' right to justice. The plain fact is that the Jones case was thrown out because Judge Wright ruled that Paula Jones had no case and that even if the President had revealed the true nature of his consensual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, it would not have changed the outcome of Paula Jones case. While President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was morally wrong, there is absolutely no evidence that the President was sexually harassing Ms. Lewinsky. Although I have concluded that the President obstructed justice by trying to influence the testimony of Bettie Currie, the fact is that the President's actions did not actually hinder Paula Jones. Indeed, in the midst of the OIC investigation, Paula Jones appealed Judge Wright's ruling and the President agreed to pay her $850,000 in an out-of-court settlement. Some might even argue that as a perverse result of the President's obstruction of justice, Paula Jones ended up with greater monetary relief than she would have otherwise received. Therefore, while the articles of impeachment came about as a direct result of President Clinton's actions in the Jones case, it is clear that in the end, the President's actions did not negatively effect Paula Jones' justice. In other words, there was no justice to obstruct in the Jones case. C. Is the President Fit to Serve? Most of us now believe that the President lied about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky when he testified under oath and that he also lied about the nature of his relationship to his staff, his family and the American people. I have concluded that the President not only lied about the affair but that he took at least one illegal action in an attempt conceal the truth from Paula Jones. However, I believe that President Clinton took these steps to avoid deep personal embarrassment, not to seize, maintain or subvert the power of the state. Let us not forget that the ultimate question we must each answer is whether on these facts arising out of these circumstances this President poses such a danger to the state that we can no longer permit him to remain in office. The ultimate issue here is a determination of whether the President is fit to serve. Consider our constitutional guidance: The President of the United States ``shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The Framers intentionally set this standard at an extremely high level to ensure that only the most serious offenses would justify overturning a popular election. The concept of ``maladministration'' was considered and rejected. I believe that whether the President's misconduct occurred in the private sphere or in his public or official capacity is also an important distinction to make when deciding his fitness to serve. Clearly, there are those private acts which in no way reflect on a president's fitness for office. On the other hand, there are public or official acts which I think no reasonable person would doubt reflect poorly on a president's fitness for office and would warrant impeachment and removal. I think we can all see the difference in gravity between the offenses of which President Clinton stands accused and a hypothetical accusation that he took a bribe. While the former reflects poorly on his character and discretion, the latter reflects on his fitness to serve and describes a classic case of abuse of office. For the President to do what he did was reprehensible and morally wrong. I believe that the President lied to avoid embarrassment. However, the Framers did not envision such behavior as being encompassed by the phrase ``other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The bottom line is that old maxim that bad facts lead to bad law. Such a low threshold for removal of a president from office would be dangerous. After careful consideration, I have concluded that President Clinton has not committed an offense that indicates the President is not fit to serve. Therefore, I will not vote to convict President Clinton. D. Time to Move On. I do not want the President to come away from this trial thinking that he is forgiven, or that what he has done is not serious, because I think it was most serious. I do not want the people of this nation to think that a vote of acquittal means that the President's conduct is acceptable because it is not acceptable. Lying and obstruction are wrong. I also hope that my vote does not lend any credence to the notion that sexual harassment is not that important, because it is important. A determination to let the President serve out his term should not be taken as an exoneration of his actions. At the same time, I think it is extremely important that we leave this chapter behind us and move on to the nations' business.

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 Wednesday, February 10, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Labor Department Budget Initiatives. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

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, February 9, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Department of Education Elementary and Secondary Education Proposals. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5357. committee on health, education, labor and pensions

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 Thursday, February 11, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is Education Budget Proposals. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on January 27th, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions approved S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. Given the conflicts presented by meetings related to the impeachment trial, our Democratic colleagues were unable to attend the executive session. When this legislation was considered in the last Congress, it was adopted on a 17-1 vote with Senator Wellstone in opposition. Senator Wellstone remains opposed to this legislation, and provided the committee with a proxy so that he could be so recorded again this year. However, due to a misunderstanding and the absence of the Ranking Democratic Member, I did not exercise his proxy. I do want the record to indicate that Senator Wellstone remains opposed to this legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today Senators Kennedy, Roth, Moynihan, and I, joined by many of our colleagues are introducing the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. The reason for this broad bipartisan effort is both compelling and simple. Currently, individuals with disabilities must choose between working or getting health care. Such a choice is absurd. But, current federal law forces individuals with disabilities to make that choice. Our legislation addresses this fundamental flaw. The federal government helps individuals with significant disabilities, who earn under $500 a month. Individuals, who have less than $2,000 in assets and have not paid into Social Security, receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) cash payments and access to Medicaid. Individuals, who have worked and paid into Social Security, receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) cash payments and access to Medicare. Yet, the current system offers no incentive for SSI and SSDI recipients to work to their full potential, to be taxpayers, to contribute to their well-being and that of their families. The facts bear out this assertion. Less than one half of one percent of the 7.5 million individuals on the Social Security disability rolls leave them. Do these individuals really want to work? The answer is a resounding, ``Yes.'' Over the last 10 years, national surveys consistently confirm that people with disabilities of working age want to work, but only about one-third are working. Are the numbers low because of discrimination or because of lack of skills? Congress has tackled these issues. We passed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. It is against the law to discriminate against an individual on the basis of disability in employment as well as in all other contexts. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and most recently the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 contribute to the access of individuals with disabilities to the education and training they need to become qualified workers. However, protection against discrimination is not enough. Access to education and training is not enough. Colleagues, the biggest remaining barrier is health insurance. Individuals with significant disabilities who meet the rigorous eligibility criteria of the Social Security disability programs cannot often get reasonably priced, appropriate health insurance coverage from the private sector. These individuals can only get health insurance from the government, and the government gives it to them only if they stay home, or at best, work a minimal amount. It is difficult to measure fully the effect of having a job on an individual's life. It has a positive impact on a person's identity and sense of self-worth. Having a job results in satisfaction associated with supporting oneself and one's family or at least not being a burden on it. If only one percent of the 7.5 million SSI and SSDI recipients go to work and forgo cash payments from the Social Security Administration (SSA), this would result in a cash savings of $3.5 billion to the federal Treasury over the lifetimes of these individuals. If we factor in the income taxes these individuals would pay, their lack of need for food stamps, subsidized housing, and other forms of assistance, that $3.5 billion dollar figure would be even higher. Beyond the individual, there is another factor. Recently we learned that our unemployment rate, 4.3 percent, is the lowest it has been since 1956. Our economy, to stay vibrant and strong, needs access to a qualified and enthusiastic pool of potential workers fro which to draw. SSI and SSDI recipients are an untapped resource. Many of the jobs that currently go unfilled, in the service sector and technology industry, are the very jobs that many SSI and SSDI recipients are ready and willing to fill, if only they could have access to health care. The Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 is targeted, fiscally responsible legislation. It would enable individuals with significant disabilities to enter the work force for the first time, reenter the work force, or avoid leaving it in the first place. These individuals would need not worry about losing their health care if they choose to work a forty hour week, to put in overtime, to go for a career advancement or change with more income potential. Under current law, a poor individual with a disability who has not worked and not paid into Social Security, who meets rigorous criteria, receives monthly SSI payments. Once eligible for SSI cash payments, these individuals have access to Medicaid. In some states these individuals may have coverage of personal assistance services and prescription drugs through Medicaid. An SSI recipient who chooses to earn income, and then exceeds his or her state's threshold for earned income for an SSI beneficiary, loses SSI cash payments and access to Medicaid. Also under current law, an individual who has worked and paid into Social Security, has a disability, and meets rigorous criteria, receives SSDI payments. After 24 months, these individuals have access to Medicare. Medicare does not cover the cost of personal assistance services or prescription drugs, items an individual with a disability may need to work at all. To access coverage of these items, an individual must spend-down his or her resources until he or she has under $2,000. Then, the individual can become eligible for coverage of these items through Medicaid in states where they are offered. An SSDI recipient who chooses to work and earns $500 monthly in a 12 month period, loses SSDI cash payments. SSDI beneficiaries continue to receive Medicare coverage after returning to work throughout a 39-month extended period of eligibility, but afterwards must pay the full Medicare Part A premium, which is over $300 monthly. The bill would allow states to expand Medicaid coverage to workers with disabilities. These options build on previous reforms including a recent provision enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). The BBA provision permitted states to offer a Medicaid buy-in to those individuals with incomes below 250 percent of poverty who would be eligible for SSI disability benefits but for their income. The first option in our legislation would build on the BBA provision. States may elect to offer a Medicaid buy-in to people with disabilities who work and have earnings above 250 percent of poverty. Even so, participating States may also set limits on an individual's unearned income, assets, and resources and may require cost-sharing and premiums on a sliding scale up to a full premium. The second option in our legislation would allow states that elect to do so to cover individuals who continue to have a severe medically determinable impairment but lose eligibility for SSI or SSDI because of medical improvement. Although medical improvement for individuals with disabilities is inextricably linked to ongoing interventions made possible through insurance coverage, under current law improvement can jeopardize continued eligibility for that coverage. The legislation requires that states not supplant existing state-only spending with Medicaid funding under either of these options and maintain current spending levels on eligible populations. A state which elects to implement the first option or the first and second options would receive a grant to support the design, establishment and operation of infrastructures to support working individuals with disabilities. A total of $150 million would be available for five years, and annual amounts would be increased at the rate of inflation from 2004 through 2009. In 2009, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would recommend whether the program is still needed. The bill includes a ten-year trial program that would permit SSDI beneficiaries to continue to receive Medicare coverage when they return to work. This option in effect extends the current 39-month extended period of eligibility. The legislation includes a time-limited demonstration program that would allow states to extend Medicaid coverage to workers who have a disability which, without access to health care, would become severe enough to quality them for SSI or SSDI. This demonstration would provide new information on the cost effectiveness of early health care intervention in keeping people with disabilities from becoming too disabled to work. Funding of $300 million would be available for the demonstration, which would sunset at the end of FY 2004. The legislation eliminates other programmatic disincentives. It would encourage SSDI and SSi beneficiaries to return to work by providing assurance that cash benefits remain available if employment proves unsuccessful. Specifically, the legislation would prohibit using employment as the sole basis for scheduling a continuing disability review and would expedite eligibility determinations for those individuals that need to return to SSDI benefits after losing such benefits because of work. We estimate the total cost of these health care-related provisions to be a total of $1.2 billion over five years. Recognizing that some SSI and SSDI recipients will need training and job placement assistance and that they seek choices related to these activities, in our bill we include provisions modeled on Senator Bunning's legislation that passed the House last year. These ``ticket to work and self-sufficiency'' provisions would give SSI and SSDI beneficiaries more choices in where to obtain vocational rehabilitation and employment services and would increase incentives to public and participating private providers serving these individuals. The ``ticket'' provisions would create a new payment system for employment services to SSI and SSDI beneficiaries the result in employment. For each beneficiary a provider assists, the provider would be reimbursed with a portion of benefits savings to the federal government that would occur when the beneficiary earns more than the current law Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA) standard of $500 per month. These ticket provisions have been estimated to cost a total of $17 million over five years. To assist individuals with disabilities to understand the myriad options available to them and their interrelationship, the legislation would create a community-based outreach program to provide accurate information on work incentives programs to individuals with disabilities, and a state grant program to help people cut red tape to access work incentives. For the community-based work incentives outreach program, up to $23 million per year would be provided for grants to states or private organizations. SSA would have the authority to provide state grants ($7 million annually) to provide help to beneficiaries in accessing the ``ticket to work'' and other work incentives programs. The legislation would reauthorize SSA's demonstration authority which expired June 10, 1996. In addition, through mandated demonstration projects SSA is to assess the effect of a gradual reduction in cash benefits a earnings increase. Under current law, SSI recipients have access to a gradual reduction in their cash payments, but SSDI recipients do not. SSDI recipients lose cash payments immediately after earning $500 monthly in a 12 month trial work period. SSDI recipients participating in the demonstration would lose one SSDI dollar for every $2 earned. Finally, the legislation directs the General Accounting Office (GAO) to study three issues: (1) tax credits and other disability-related employment incentives under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; (2) the coordination of SSI and SSDI benefits; and (3) the effects of the Substantial Gainful Activity (currently $500 monthly) standard on work incentives. These provisions have been estimated to cost a total of $55 million over five years. This legislation represents two years of work. It reflects what individuals with disabilities say they need. It was shaped by input across the philosophical spectrum. It was endorsed by the President in this State of the Union Address. It is an opportunity to bring responsible change to federal policy and eliminate a perverse dilemma for many Americans with disabilities--if you don't work, you get health care; if you do work, you don't. This legislation is a vital link that will make the American dream a reality for many Americans with disabilities. Let's work together to make the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 the first significant legislation enacted by the 106th Congress.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with eight other members of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in introducing the ``Patients' Bill of Rights.'' I think it is solid legislation that will result in a greatly improved health care system for Americans. As Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with its jurisdiction of private health insurance and public health programs, I anticipate that the Committee will have an active health care agenda during the 106th Congress, including early consideration of patient protection legislation. In fact, on January 20th, the Committee held a hearing on the Department of Labor's proposed rules on health plan information requirements and internal and external appeals rights. Last week's hearing builds on the foundation of 14 related hearings, which my Committee held during the 105th Congress. These included 11 hearings related to the issues of health care quality, confidentiality, genetic discrimination, and the Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA) implementation of its new health insurance responsibilities. And Senator Bill Frist's Public Health and Safety Subcommittee held three hearings on the work of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR). Each of these hearings helped us in developing the separate pieces of legislation that are reflected in our ``Patients' Bill of Rights.'' People need to know what their plan will cover and how they will get their health care. The ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' requires full information disclosure by an employer about the health plans he or she offers to employees. Patients also need to know how adverse decisions by the plan can be appealed, both internally and externally, to an independent medical reviewer. The limited set of standards under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) may have worked well for the simple payment of health insurance claims under the fee-for-service system in 1974. We have moved from a system where an individual received a treatment or procedure, and the bill was simply paid. In our current system, an individual frequently obtains authorization before a treatment or procedure can be provided. And it is in the context of these changes that ERISA needs to be amended in order to give participants and beneficiaries the right to appeal adverse coverage or medical necessity decisions to an independent medical expert. Under the ``Patients' Bill of Rights,'' enrollees will get timely decisions about what will be covered. Furthermore, if an individual disagrees with the plan's decision, that individual may appeal the decision to an independent, external reviewer. The reviewer's decision will be binding on the health plan. However, the patient maintains his or her current rights to go to court. Timely utilization decisions and a defined process for appealing such decisions is the key to restoring trust in the health care system. Another important provision of the ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' would limit the collection and use of predictive genetic information by group health plans and health insurance companies. As our body of scientific knowledge about genetics increases, so, too, do the concerns about how this information may be used. There is no question that our understanding of genetics has brought us to a new future. Our challenge as a Congress is to quickly enact legislation to help ensure that our society reaps the full health benefits of genetic testing, and also to put to rest any concerns that the information will be used as a new tool to discriminate against specific ethnic groups or individual Americans. Our legislation addresses these concerns by prohibiting group health plans and health insurance companies in all markets from adjusting premiums on the basis of predictive genetic information; and it prohibits group health plans and health insurance companies from requesting predictive genetic information as a condition of enrollment. Many of our colleagues argue that the current accountability structure of ERISA is insufficient to protect patients from bad decisions made by health plans. They would like to hold health plans accountable by removing the ERISA preemption and allowing group health plans to be sued in State court for damages resulting from personal injury or for wrongful death due to ``the treatment of or the failure to treat a mental illness or disease.'' Mr. President, patients already have the right to sue their health plan in State court. Patients can sue health plans for personal injury or wrongful death resulting from the delivery of substandard care or the failure to diagnose and properly treat an illness or disease. Furthermore, the courts have determined that health plans can be held liable for having policies that encourage providers to deliver inadequate medical care. You simply cannot sue your way to better health. We believe that patients need to get the care they need when they need it. In the ``Patients' Bill of Rights,'' we make sure each patient is afforded every opportunity to have the right treatment decision made by health care professionals. And, we make sure that a patient can appeal an adverse decision to an independent medical expert outside the health plan. This approach, Mr. President, puts teeth into ERISA and will assure that patients get the care they need. Prevention, not litigation, is the best medicine. As the Health and Education Committee works on health care quality legislation, I will keep in mind three goals. First, to give families the protections they want and need. Second, to ensure that medical decisions are made by physicians in consultation with their patients. And, finally, to keep the cost of this legislation low, so that it displaces no one from getting health care coverage. Our goal is to give Americans the protections they want and need in a package that they can afford and that we can enact. This is why I hope the ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' we have introduced today will be enacted and signed into law by the President.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to begin by commending Senator Nickles and all of the members who participated in putting the legislation together. I think it is solid legislation that will result in a greatly improved health care system for Americans, and I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the ``Patients' Bill of Rights Plus.'' As Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with its jurisdiction of private health insurance and public health programs, I anticipate that the Committee will have an active health care agenda during the 106th Congress. In fact, on January 20th, the Committee held a hearing on health plan information requirements and internal and external appeals rights. And, this hearing builds on the foundation of fourteen related hearings that my Committee held during the 105th Congress. People need to know what their plan will cover and how they will get their health care. The ``Patients' Bill of Rights Plus'' requires full information disclosure by an employer about the health plans he or she offers to employees. Patients also need to know how adverse decisions by the plan can be appealed, both internally and externally, to an independent medical reviewer. The limited set of standards under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) may have worked well for the simple payment of health insurance claims under the fee-for-service system in 1974. Today, however, our system is much more complex, and there are many types of decisions being made--from routine reimbursements to pre- authorizations for hospital stays. And it is in the context of these changes, particularly the evolution of managed care, that ERISA needs to be amended in order to give participants and beneficiaries the right to appeal adverse coverage or medical necessity decisions to an independent medical expert. The provision of our bill giving consumers a new right of an external grievance and appeals process is one of which I am particularly proud, since it is the cornerstone of S. 1712, the Health Care QUEST Act, which I introduced with Senator Lieberman during the last Congress. Under the ``Patients' Bill of Rights Plus,'' enrollees will get timely decisions about what will be covered. Furthermore, if an individual disagrees with the plan's decision, that individual may appeal the decision to an independent, external reviewer. The reviewer's decision will be binding on the health plan. However, the patient maintains his or her current rights to go to court. As the Health and Education Committee works on health care quality legislation, I will keep in mind three goals. First, to give families the protections they want and need. Second, to ensure that medical decisions are made by physicians in consultation with their patients. And, finally, to keep the cost of this legislation low so that it displaces no one from getting health care coverage. Our goal is to give Americans the protections they want and need in a package that they can afford and that we can enact. This is why I hope the ``Patients' Bill of Rights Plus'' we have introduced today will be enacted and signed into law by the President.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Improving Education Opportunities: Senators' Perspective during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 26, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 27, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to begin by commending Senator Nickles and all of the members who participated in putting the legislation together. I think it is solid legislation that will result in a greatly improved health care system for Americans, and I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the ``Patients' Bill of Rights Plus.'' As Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with its jurisdiction of private health insurance and public health programs, I anticipate that the Committee will have an active health care agenda during the 106th Congress. In fact, on January 20th, the Committee held a hearing on health plan information requirements and internal and external appeals rights. And, this hearing builds on the foundation of fourteen related hearings that my Committee held during the 105th Congress. People need to know what their plan will cover and how they will get their health care. The ``Patients' Bill of Rights Plus'' requires full information disclosure by an employer about the health plans he or she offers to employees. Patients also need to know how adverse decisions by the plan can be appealed, both internally and externally, to an independent medical reviewer. The limited set of standards under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) may have worked well for the simple payment of health insurance claims under the fee-for-service system in 1974. Today, however, our system is much more complex, and there are many types of decisions being made--from routine reimbursements to pre- authorizations for hospital stays. And it is in the context of these changes, particularly the evolution of managed care, that ERISA needs to be amended in order to give participants and beneficiaries the right to appeal adverse coverage or medical necessity decisions to an independent medical expert. The provision of our bill giving consumers a new right of an external grievance and appeals process is one of which I am particularly proud, since it is the cornerstone of S. 1712, the Health Care QUEST Act, which I introduced with Senator Lieberman during the last Congress. Under the ``Patients' Bill of Rights Plus,'' enrollees will get timely decisions about what will be covered. Furthermore, if an individual disagrees with the plan's decision, that individual may appeal the decision to an independent, external reviewer. The reviewer's decision will be binding on the health plan. However, the patient maintains his or her current rights to go to court. As the Health and Education Committee works on health care quality legislation, I will keep in mind three goals. First, to give families the protections they want and need. Second, to ensure that medical decisions are made by physicians in consultation with their patients. And, finally, to keep the cost of this legislation low so that it displaces no one from getting health care coverage. Our goal is to give Americans the protections they want and need in a package that they can afford and that we can enact. This is why I hope the ``Patients' Bill of Rights Plus'' we have introduced today will be enacted and signed into law by the President.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend our tax law's treatment of scholarships awarded under the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) scholarship program. Although, as a general rule, scholarships are excludable from income, the Internal Revenue Service has taken the position that NHSC scholarships are includible in income. Imposing taxes on the scholarships could have disastrous effects on a program that for over 20 years has helped funnel doctors, nurse-practitioners, physician assistants, and other health professionals into medically underserved communities. Under the National Health Service Corps program, health professions students are given a scholarship covering the cost of tuition and fees, together with a monthly stipend covering living expenses. For each year of scholarship funding, NHSC scholars are obligated, upon completion of their training, to provide a year of full-time primary health care in one of 2,000 designated health professions shortage areas. These shortage areas include the nation's neediest communities, both rural areas and inner cities. NHSC scholars who renege on their service obligations are required to re-pay an amount equal to three times the scholarship, plus interest. Generally, the Internal Revenue Code provides that amounts received as scholarships are not includible in a recipient's gross income. There is an exception to this rule, however, when a scholarship is provided in exchange for services or a promise to perform services. Without such an exception, an employer could disguise compensation as a scholarship. National Health Corps Service scholarships, however, are not disguised compensation. Upon completion of their studies, the large majority of NHSC scholars do not work for the Federal government, which awarded them the scholarship. Instead, they work at places like low-income clinics or inner-city hospitals. Consequently, this is not a situation where an employer is transforming compensation into a scholarship. I introduced a bill similar to this one during the last Congress. It was passed by the Senate as part of the Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 1998, and was included in the conference agreement for that bill. This bill was vetoed by the president, so the problem still exists. The conference committee also determined that amounts received under the F. Edward Hebert Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program should also be eligible for tax-free treatment. This is a program similar to the National Health Service Corps available to members of the armed forces. The bill I am introducing today also provides for exclusion from income for scholarships received under this program. Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that providing an exclusion from income for amounts received under these two scholarship programs would have a negligible effect on budget receipts. I do not expect any change in that analysis, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on this first legislative day of the 106th Congress I rise in the Senate Chamber to express my strong support for the bill Senator Snowe and I are introducing and urge my Senate colleagues to join as cosponsors of this important legislation. Throughout the last Congress the Senate spent many legislative hours debating campaign finance reform. In fact, since my election to the House in the wake of the Watergate scandal, I have spent many long hours working with my colleagues to craft campaign finance reform legislation that could endure the legislative process and survive a constitutional challenge. We came close in 1994 and last year, and I believe circumstances still remain right for enactment of meaningful campaign finance reform during this Congress. I believe that the irregularities associated with our recent campaigns, and especially in the 1996 elections, point out the fact that current election laws are not being strongly enforced or working to achieve the goals that we all have for campaign finance reform. The proof obtained from the hearings in both the House and the Senate on campaign finance abuses should alone be enough to motivate my colleagues to complete work on this issue in the Senate. Without action, these abuses will become more pronounced and widespread as we go from election to election. The Snowe-Jeffords bill, the Advancing Truth and Accountability of Campaign Communications Act (ATACC), will boost disclosure requirements and tighten the rule on expenditures of corporate and union treasury funds in the weeks preceding a primary and general election. I would like to begin with a story that may help my colleagues understand the need for this legislation, and that many of my colleagues may understand from their own campaigns. Two individuals are running for the Senate and have spent the last few months holding debates, talking to the voters and traveling around the state. Both candidates feel that they have informed the voters of their thoughts, views and opinions on the issues, and that the voters can use this information to decide on which candidate they will support. Two weeks before the day of the election a group called the People for the Truth and the American Way, let's say, begins to run television advertisements which include the picture of one of the candidates and that candidate's name. However, these advertisements do not use the express terms of ``vote for'' or ``vote against.'' These advertisements discuss issues such as the candidate's drinking, supposed off-shore bank accounts and the failure of the candidate's business. The voters do not know who this group is, who are its financial backers and why they have an interest in this specific election, and under our current election law the voters will not find out. Thus, even though the candidates have attempted to provide the voters with all the information concerning the candidate's views on the issues, they will be casting their vote lacking critical information concerning these advertisements. Some people may say that voters do not need this information. But as James Madison said, ``A popular government without popular information is but a prologue to a tragedy or a farce or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.'' Mr. President, the ATACC act will arm the people with the knowledge they need in order to sustain our popular government. And the need to arm the people with this knowledge is becoming greater every year. As my colleague Senator Snowe has stated, the amount of money spent on issue advocacy advertising is increasing over time at an alarming rate. In the 1995-1996 election cycle an estimated $135-150 million was spent on issue advocacy, while in the recently completed cycle an estimated $275-340 million was expended on these types of advertisements. This is a doubling of the amount of money spent on issue advocacy ads in one election cycle, and I fear entering an election cycle that includes a Presidential election that we may see at least another doubling of these type of expenditures. I have long believed in Justice Brandeis' statement that, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' The disclosure requirements in the ATACC act are narrow and tailored to provide the electorate with the important pertinent information they will need to make an informed decision. Information included on the disclosure statement includes the sponsor of the advertisement, amount spent, and the identity of the contributors who donated more than $500. Getting the public this information will greatly help the electorate evaluate those who are seeking federal office. Additionally, this disclosure, or disinfectant as Justice Brandeis puts it, will also help deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption that many already feel pervades our campaign finance system. This, too, is an important outcome of the disclosure requirements of this bill. Getting this information into the public purview would enable the press, the FEC and interest groups to help ensure that our federal campaign finance laws are obeyed. If the public doesn't feel that the laws Congress passes in this area are being followed, this will lead to a greater level of disillusionment in their elected representatives. Exposure to the light of day of any corruption by this required disclosure will help reassure our public that the laws will be followed and enforced. While our bill focuses on disclosure, it will also prohibit corporations and unions from using general treasury monies to fund these types of electioneering communications in a defined period close to an election. Since 1907, federal law has banned corporations from engaging in electioneering. In 1947, that ban was extended to prohibit unions from electioneering as well. The Supreme Court has upheld these restrictions in order to avoid the deleterious influences on federal elections resulting from the use of money by those who exercise control over large aggregations of capital. By treating both corporations and unions similarly we extend current regulation cautiously and fairly. I feel that this prohibition, coupled with the disclosure requirements, will address many of the concerns my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have raised with regards to our current campaign finance laws. Mr. President, I think it is important to clarify at this time some of the things that this bill will not do. It will not prevent grass- roots lobbying communications, it does not cover printed material, nor require the text or a copy of the advertisement to be disclosed. Finally, it does not restrict how much money can be spent on ads, nor restrict how much money a group raises. These points must be expressed early on to ensure that my colleagues can clearly understand what we are and are not attempting to do with our legislation. We have taken great care with our bill to avoid violating the important principles in the First Amendment of our Constitution. This has required us to review the seminal cases in this area, including Buckley v. Valeo. Limiting corporate and union spending and disclosure rules has been in area that the Supreme Court has been most tolerant of regulation. We also strove to make the requirements sufficiently clear and narrow to over come unconstitutional claims of vagueness and over breadth. Mr. President, I wish I could guarantee to my colleagues that these provisions would be held constitutional, but as we found out with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, even with near unanimous support, it is difficult to gauge what the Supreme Court will decide on constitutional issues. However, I feel that the provisions we have created follow closely the constitutional roadmap established by the Supreme Court by the decisions in this area, and that it would be upheld. I know that campaign finance reform is an areas of diverse viewpoints and beliefs. However, I feel that the ATACC act offers a constructive and constitutional solution that addresses some of the problems that have been expressed concerning our current campaign finance system. The American people are watching and hoping that we will have a fair, informative and productive debate on campaign finance reform. I know that the proposal that Senator Snowe and I have put forward will do just that. The electorate has grown more and more disappointed with the tenor of campaigns over the last few years, and this disappointment is reflected in the low number of people that actually participate in what makes this country and democracy great, voting. I feel that giving the voters the additional information required by our legislation will help dispel some of the disillusionment the electorate feel with our campaign system and reinvigorate people to participate again in our democratic system. In conclusion, the very basis of our democracy requires that an informed electorate participate by going to the polls and voting. The ATACC act will through its disclosure requirements inform our electorate and lead people to again participate in our democratic system.