Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Under the language in the bill presented by the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Massachusetts, that program would essentially be overridden. That program would no longer exist, because the eligibility requirements are strict, those required under the Kennedy bill are so strict that the Utah program would no longer fit in it and therefore could no longer function. This bill would eliminate that Utah program, along with 33 other States. Is the Senator aware of that?

Mr. GREGG. The Senator points out the State of Utah already has a program where they are attempting to cover uncovered children, as do 32 other States.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Vermont. I thank him for his courtesy and enjoy working with him. Amendment No. 243

Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, just to clarify the record on this, this amendment was addressing the issue of funding relative to special education which is, I believe, a critical element of the whole issue obviously of special education, especially the fact that the Federal Government has failed to live up to its obligation to fund 40 percent of the cost of special education. It is only funding approximately 7 to 8 percent of the cost. After discussions with the majority leader, and with members of the Appropriations Committee on which I serve, I think there is a reasonable opportunity that we will receive the type of funding and support we need in order to start on the path toward reaching the 40 percent. This path was outlined in S. 1, Senate bill 1, which is the Senate Republican position and which commits to having us fund 40 percent over a 7-year period. This year I am hopeful we can increase funding for special ed so we can get up above the $4 billion mark in this account, which would allow us to--under the new bill, if it is passed, as I presume it will be--allow us to kick in the ability of the local communities to use some of this special ed funding which the Federal Government was supposed to be paying for, which presently is being paid for by local taxpayers, to use those local taxpayer dollars for other areas of education and to relieve some of the pressure on the communities and the local taxpayers. So with that understanding, which is not formal--I appreciate that-- but which I believe was made in good faith, I am withdrawing this amendment. I recognize a lot of work has gone into this bill, that there is a great desire to pass this bill without amendments so it will be able to be moved quickly and because it involves an intricate and delicate, delicate compromise. And it is a step forward in the attempt to address the IDEA question and issue of caring for children with disabilities. This amendment I believe would have had a good chance of passing, but I believe it also would have undermined the desire of those who want to reach an accommodation to make sure to move the process forward and improve the basic special ed bill, and we can do so with this bill, and it would undermine the capacity to do that. I still believe we can still get to the role of the funding issue which runs on a parallel course without necessarily having to attach this specific language to this bill. I would note that the law continues to retain in it the 40 percent language. It remains the commitment of the Federal Government and it is a commitment which I and I know the majority, the chairman of the committee, ranking member on the subcommittee, and the majority leader are committed to try to reach.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays and withdraw my amendment which is No. 241.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GREGG. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, let me begin by speaking a little bit about the underlying bill and congratulating the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, and the Presiding Officer for their extraordinary work in developing this bill. The Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Vermont, and the Senator from Iowa, of course, have been involved in this issue for years and years and have worked very hard together, as have a number of Members of the Senate and House. It has been acknowledged that Senator Lott, through his excellent representation and his chief of staff, David Hoppe, has done an extraordinary amount of lifting to make sure that this process has come to closure. It was not an easy one. Meetings went on for dramatic lengths of time. There were complications, controversial issues which people had vested interests in which were very deep and intensely felt. The fact that a final product was reached, and an agreement has been brought before the Senate, reflects the genuine effort of a lot of very good people. It is a product which will benefit many children in this country as it goes forward and represents a new day for special education. It is really not a reauthorization of the special education bill but basically a new bill, a new approach, in many ways. It should be looked on as such. I got involved in special education a long time ago, in fact, before I was even able to vote. I was working at a center called the Crotched Mountain Rehabilitation Center, which began as a center to care for children who have polio, and when that disease was, fortunately, beaten, it moved on to care for children who had problems with hearing, deaf children, specifically, and then when that issue was resolved in many ways relative to needing special schools and those children could find their way into the mainstream, it moved on to dealing with children with very complex physical disabilities, sometimes emotional disabilities. It is and continues to be the premier facility, or one of the premier facilities, in the country for caring and educating-- that is the basic goal of the Crotched Mountain Rehabilitation Center-- children with disabilities, and does it in a variety of ways. When 94-142 came along, we saw it as a great step forward because it meant the school systems would begin to have to be involved in educating children who we felt should have remained in school systems, but because school systems were not able to do it, ended up at Crotched Mountain. It gave us the opportunity to move kids back into education in the much more comfortable environment of their home and community, who should have been in their home and their community being educated. We continue to work with those who really needed some special attention. So the issue of special education is something I have had a lot of personal involvement with. I think that 94-142 is a bill with really strong decisions made by this legislature over the years in the area of education. But as part of that concept, there was an element of sharing of the effort. Originally, when it was passed, 40 percent of the cost of special education was going to be borne by the Federal Government, the balance being borne by the local communities and the State. This was a reasonable cost-sharing concept. Unfortunately, over the years, although the bill itself continues to work and kids are getting educated, the cost sharing has not occurred. The Federal Government's participation in helping to bear the burden of educating children who have special needs has dropped to about 7 percent, or did drop to about 7 percent a year and a half ago. That meant that the local communities and the States have had to step in and pick up the Federal share of the cost. What has this done? Unfortunately, it has perverted the process. The practical effect of this is not only that the Federal Government has not come up with the dollars that have been owed the local communities, the practical effect has been in two ways extraordinarily detrimental. First, it has meant that the special-needs child and their parents have found themselves in a constant confrontation--almost, in many instances, an actual confrontation, but certainly a tension with the parents of children who are not special-needs children and with the school boards, because the demand to educate and the cost to educate the special-needs child is in many instances so high. I know of a number of instances in New Hampshire where special-needs- children costs have been upward to $100,000. It is certainly not unusual for it to be in the $10,000 to $20,000 range. That has meant that resources which parents of children who are not special-needs children felt was available to them, in many instances, because of the need to pick up the Federal cost, have had to go to benefit the special-needs child, because we are dealing, in many instances, with a pie that could not be expanded, and therefore the slicing of the pie ended up with the special-needs child obtaining, appropriately, a significant support level. But because the Federal Government was not coming in and paying its fair share, the support level for other children in the school systems dropped off or was less--maybe not dropped off, but was less than what was, many people thought, needed. So this tension occurred and it does occur and it still exists out there. I know in my own school systems in New Hampshire it still exists, and it is difficult on the parents. It is hard enough on the parents to have a special-needs child. It is more difficult when you put them in the position of being faced with this controversy over how the funds are being allocated in the school system. So that was one of the detriments of this failure of the Federal Government to live up to what it said it would do. The second detriment of the Federal Government's failure to living up to what it said it would do, it perverted the tax base of many communities. I know in my State and throughout New England, and it may be true in other parts of the country, real estate taxes pay a tremendous percentage of the costs of education. What happens when the Federal Government fails to come forward with its full share of the special-education need, then that means that cost falls back on the property tax owner, the homeowner in the community, who is already under significant stress with the tax burden. This, again, creates tension, an inappropriate tension, between the homeowners and the communities, and property taxpayers in the communities who maybe do not have schoolchildren, and particularly special needs children, and the school system itself, which sees needs that it feels it has to pay for, but it does not feel it can go back to the property tax owner or to the State tax treasury for. In many States, that may be the effect. You have an intense confrontation in many areas, and the intensity of it is undermining the confidence in the school systems and the quality of the school systems and, unfortunately, the character of the school systems as a positive environment which the community has supported in many areas. So, that, again, is almost a direct function of the Federal Government's failure to pay its fair share. Why do I say that? Because in New Hampshire, in the average school district in New Hampshire, 20 percent of the costs of the school districts go to special education-- 20 percent--and New Hampshire may be low compared to other States. I think in Massachusetts it is somewhere around 30 percent. However, what you can see when the Federal Government fails to come forward and pay its fair share of that cost, of that 20 percent, is that has a disproportionate impact on the community, on the students, and on the tax base. So what we have here is the Federal Government having created an obligation--and an inappropriate obligation--on the communities and States, having said it would fund that obligation at the level of 40 percent, but only funding it at the level of 7 percent, 2 years. We are getting that amount up a little bit because of efforts made by the leader, Senator Lott, but not up enough. So we have probably the single largest unfunded mandate of the Federal system outside of the environmental area in this area of special education. One of the primary commitments of the Republican Congress was that we would stop unfunded mandates. So as an effort to do that, we passed as a Congress--and I think it was passed almost unanimously, so we had bipartisan support--a bill that was authored by Senator Kempthorne from Idaho, was passed during the last session, and that bill said there would be no more unfunded mandates, or if there were unfunded mandates, it would take a supermajority to pass, in most instances, or at least we have to have full disclosure. Well, I think that should apply to reauthorizations, and especially reauthorizations which are essentially a creation of a new approach, in many ways, to the law. On the balance of what we have already done as a Congress, clearly, we have an obligation to live up to the 40 percent, but more importantly, we have an obligation to live up to it because it is needed, it is appropriate, and it is the right thing to do. I have offered this amendment, which I brought forward today, which essentially will get us to the 40 percent. While it does not get us there immediately, it gets us there, I believe, by the year 2004. It is a scaling up, and I believe with some of the incentives for a little more efficiency which this bill puts in place, especially in reducing, hopefully, some of the attorney's fees and consultant fees, that we will be able to reduce some costs in special education and, at the same time, be increasing the Federal share. I believe that, as a result of those two functions, we will get to the 40 percent level, which is the goal we should attempt to obtain here. Let me tell you a little bit of the history of the funding of this issue. Last year, we considered this to be so important that as we completed the omnibus appropriations bill, Senator Lott, to his credit--and he never got much credit for it, which I thought was ironic--insisted that as part of the settlement with the White House, we would put an additional $780 million into special education. That brought the special education total to about $3 billion. That was a major step forward. That meant significant, new, or additional dollars in special education. But it only meant that we essentially went from 6 or 7 percent up to about 8, 8.5 percent of the funding levels of the special ed cost for the country. So we are still well below the 40 percent we should be at. But at least we put our dollars where our talk was and we showed that we were willing to make that decision as a Republican Congress. We were willing to put dollars on the table in support of special education. We didn't get any credit for it. In fact, during the election, in many instances, we were rather vilified by our position on education by some of our opposition. But the fact is that we have been there with dollars and commitment. Now, as this Congress began, I thought the President would want to join us in this effort. I regret to say that he has not. He has put forward a lot of funding initiatives in education. He has talked about them everywhere. Obviously, he has made education a priority. But for some reason, in doing that, he has overlooked, ignored, what is the primary Federal education obligation today in the elementary and secondary school system, which is special education funding. As he has created all these new programs for educational funding, he has failed to, in any significant way, go back and fulfill our obligation of the 40 percent. In fact, his budget proposed only an additional $141 million. That is a lot of money, but in the context of what we are talking about relative to the cost of special education, it is really a very, very, very insignificant commitment, especially when you consider the fact that he is talking multiple billions--somebody said it was $30 billion--of new funding for education and discretionary accounts over the term of the next budget cycle. That may be high, but we know it is a very big number. It hasn't been settled, but it is a huge number. So it didn't surprise me, really, that he failed to put this on his list of issues that should be addressed, because this is an obligation the Federal Government presently had. So it is my belief that before we start--most of these educational issues are new initiatives--before we start creating a new obligation for the Federal Government in education that we are going to do this, this and that for the public, we ought to fulfill the obligation we made back in 1976, which was that we would fund 40 percent of the special ed need, an obligation which not only should we fulfill because we said we would by law, but because it is the right thing to do and because it works. Special needs kids who go through the system learn and they participate in the mainstreaming of education, and they have an opportunity to have a better lifestyle. So if you want to help education, this is a great way to do it. Not only would it help a special needs child, but, equally important, if we fully fund the 40 percent of special education accounts, we will, in fact, be helping education at the elementary and secondary school level dramatically because we will be infusing a significant amount of funds into a system that is under strain right now, according to the President, and I believe it is, also. Those funds will give the local school systems new flexibility in order to address other needs of the school system because, under this bill, one of the positive aspects of this bill is after we get to a certain funding level, which we haven't quite reached yet, local communities will have a chance to take a percentage of the special needs dollars and apply them for other educational activity, which is the way it should be, because, right now what is happening is that the local dollars are being used to fund the Federal share. When the Federal Government starts to fund its share, the local dollars should be freed up to fund other educational initiatives, those which are important in the community. That is the concept of this bill, in part. So this attempt to fully fund the special needs program is critical, not only to help the special needs child but also to free up the funds and give the local school system some flexibility as to how they address the coming years of cost and expense and education of our children. So this amendment that I am offering today, which has broad bipartisan support, is a statement of our belief as an authorizing committee that we shall pay the obligations of the special ed bill as it was originally intended. We don't get there immediately. We propose about a $1 billion increase this year, followed by a billion and a half or so each year thereafter until we get to approximately the 40 percent level. We need this authorization, obviously, in order to give the appropriating committees the directions that will allow them to make the proper allocation for the new education dollars that are going to be flowing. If the appropriating committee does not see from the authorizing committee that we consider this to be a priority, then the appropriating committee may want to put the money somewhere else. But, obviously, this is a priority for us. This has been a key piece of legislation. The chairman has worked on this and has been committed to this for years. The Senator from Iowa has an equal commitment, as do the members of the committee. Of course, the majority leader, through actions last year and through the involvement of his chief of staff this year, has shown his tremendous commitment. I should mention one other item relative to commitment from the Republican side. The Republican Congress and the Senate listed the top 10 issues that we intend to pass in this session. The No. 1 bill that we put forward, S. 1, was a bill that called for funding for special education exactly in line with this amendment. So this amendment is essentially an assertion of what is the Republican senatorial conference's position relative to funding special education and has been rated the No. 1 priority of this Republican Congress by its designation as Senate bill 1. So let me conclude there. But first let me make a couple of points. I want to, again, note what the chairman noted, which is that the Senator occupying the chair now, the Senator from Tennessee, was the energizer of this effort. He put thousands of hours, I suspect, or hundreds anyway, into this effort last year and did an extraordinary job of getting us almost to the finish line--close enough so that it was able to be crossed this year. Second, I thank the chairman for his excellent effort in this area. He has been a committed individual in the area of education and all of the aspects of education, as we know, for many years. This is another in the long list of successes he has had. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to submit, for myself and Senator Smith of New Hampshire, a Senate resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that individuals afflicted with breast cancer should not be alone in their fight against the terrifying disease. With Mother's Day coming up this Sunday, May 11, it seems especially appropriate that we recognize the extent to which our society is affected by this disease, as well as the importance of supporting breast cancer patients and their family members and friends who are all meeting the challenges of this disease at the side of their loved one. In 1997, it is estimated that 1 out of every 8 women will develop breast cancer in her lifetime and nearly 44,000 individuals will die of the disease this year. In New Hampshire alone there are 12,700 women living with breast cancer, and 230 women are expected to die of this terrible disease in 1997. With each of these individuals come loved ones who are also impacted. It is imperative to have a strong support system not only for individuals with breast cancer but for the family and friends who make up their support system. Our recognition of the millions of people who are dealing with similar struggles can help both the breast cancer patients and their loved ones to stay strong during their times of need. With this resolution, we hope to encourage an environment in New Hampshire, and across the Nation, where support is provided to both the individuals with breast cancer as well as their family and friends through public awareness and education, and where family members and loved ones of individuals with breast cancer support each other in along with the individual facing breast cancer.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business and to the extent that it affects the time of the Democratic leader, that that time be added to his time at the end of the hour, as originally scheduled.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe we are in morning business, is that correct?

Mr. GREGG. Without yielding the floor, I will yield.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to raise a couple of points here as we move through the budget negotiations. There are ongoing negotiations with the White House relative to trying to reach a budget agreement. But those negotiations deal with a budget that will run through the year 2002. My concern is that, as we look at a budget in that short timeframe, action which we take to address a budget that would reach balance by 2002 would have impact beyond that period, obviously, because we will put in place decisions that are not going to end at the time that budget concludes in 2002, but it will affect spending beyond that time. In two major accounts, the President's budget, as proposed, is basically a budget that has a low initial cost but has a dramatic, explosive cost in the outyears when you get past the year 2002. Both in the Medicare account and the Medicaid account, the President's budget, as sent up here, has significant increases in spending, but those increases in spending that are for the 5-year timeframe running through 2002 are really minuscule compared to the spending that will occur in the period after 2002. I believe this needs to be highlighted because, if it is not, I am afraid we will adopt initiatives in the President's budget that come out of it as part of this process of building our own budget and reaching a bipartisan budget. I am concerned that we will adopt initiatives that will cost us dramatic amounts of money outside the budget window and, once again, aggravate the real problem that confronts the country. We would be passing on to our children a country with huge debts of obligation that our children will never be able to pay. Let me highlight this in specifics. Under the President's proposal for Medicare, there is $33 billion in new spending during the budget window, through the year 2002. When you go beyond the year 2002 to the period of the next 4 years--this is a 4-year period, and it would run past that, obviously--there will be an explosion in the cost of those new programs. Those new programs, which cost $33 billion in the next 4 years, in the 4 years after that will cost $93 billion in new spending. That represents a 182-percent increase over the 5-year period. That is in the Medicare accounts. Some of these new programs involve the following--and I agree they are probably programs which we all feel would be nice. But the question is: Can we afford them? Can we afford to pass them on to our children? Can we afford to pass $93 billion in new spending on to our children, which is outside the budget window? Some of the new programs include: A new initiative in the area of cancer screening, for $2.5 billion; a direct payment to hospitals, outside of AAPCC, $26 billion; changing the way the Medicare accounts for the part B, 20-percent charge, which accounts for $42 billion; and a whole list of other new initiatives, all of which add up to $93 billion in spending that is outside the budget window, and is new spending for new programs and which will have to be paid by the taxpayers of this country, and, if not, borrowed from our children. In either event, it will aggravate the balance in the Medicare trust fund and continue to drive the Medicare trust fund toward insolvency. The second area the President has taken the same course of action on is in the area of Medicaid. In the Medicaid accounts, he has proposed $16 billion of new spending during the budget period between 1998 and the year 2002. But that $16 billion in new programmatic spending that occurs in the first 5 years explodes in the next 4 years to $34 billion, for a 113-percent increase. That is a 113-percent increase over the initial spending period--another explosive expansion of an entitlement program through the process of adding new benefits. In this area, we are talking about new benefits for disabled, illegal immigrants, and new benefits for children of illegal immigrants. And so you have this dramatic increase in spending. When you combine these two proposals--the President's proposal in Medicare and the proposal in Medicaid--the new spending accounts aggravate and compound the problem even more dramatically. You see here that in the next 5 years, which is the budget period the President sent us on this, there is $49 billion in new spending in Medicare and Medicaid accounts. As you move into the outyears, that $49 billion translates into $127 billion in new spending, or a 159-percent increase because of new programmatic activity. Now, what we are talking about here--and this needs to be stressed--is new programmatic activity. We are not talking about maintaining the Medicare trust fund or Medicaid trust funds; we are talking about adding to that program. Mr. President, we are talking about increased spending as a result of brandnew programs. So as we move down this road of trying to reach agreement on this budget, I think we have to be very sensitive that we not add a lot of new programs that may look affordable over the next 4 or 5 years, but which, in the outyears, becomes totally unaffordable and further aggravates what is already a very serious situation, because we know the Medicare trust fund is going bankrupt in 2000 and this will only aggravate that. All of these costs, if passed on to our children, may end up making their capacity to have a prosperous and productive country much less. This must be focused on as we go down the road to reaching a budget agreement. I yield back such time as I may have left. I appreciate the Senator from Nevada allowing me to speak at this point, during the time of the Democratic leader.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his excellent statement, which sets the premise for this hour of discussion that has been reserved relative to the proposal by the administration and the President and the Vice President to unilaterally take control over what is clearly a legislative prerogative and determine, unilaterally, that 89 percent--89 percent--of the work force in this country which would participate in Federal jobs will no longer be able to participate in those jobs. That is the practical effect of this proposal which is being put forward by the President and which was announced by the Vice President, was announced by the Vice President at a convention of a building trades union. One could be cynical and say, ``Well, the building trades unions in the last campaigns spent $35 million reported''--we suspect maybe it may be closer to twice that unreported--``spent $35 million reported for the purposes of electing this President and that therefore this decision by the President to exceed his authority, as announced by the Vice President, is a return of that favor.'' One could be cynical and one would be accurate, I suspect, in making that statement. But as the Senator from Georgia has pointed out, this goes well beyond the cynicism of this administration, which has already been displayed in a most significant way in a variety of other instances relative to campaign financing and fundraising and what will be done by this administration to benefit people who contribute to them. It goes well beyond that cynical approach and abuse of power which has become almost a hallmark of this administration. It goes to the essence of the separation of powers on which our Government is structured. This Congress is the Congress of the people. It is the Congress which is elected by the people. You may agree with it. You may disagree with it. But the fact is that the membership of this Congress is sent here for the purpose of writing the laws which govern the people whom we represent. As the Senator from Georgia has so adequately pointed out, the President's power in the legislative process is that of a negative, not of a creator of that law. In fact, ironically, the President does not even participate as a negative on some of the most significant laws that affect this country. For example, the budget of the United States is not signed or vetoed or subject to signature or veto by the President of the United States. It is purely a law driven by the body of the people of this country, which is the Congress. When a decision is going to be made to disenfranchise 89 percent of the people who presently participate in working for the Federal Government as contractors, that cannot be unilaterally done by the executive branch. That is a decision of such weight and of such importance that it is reserved clearly to the House of the people and to the Senate of the United States. And yet, this President has decided to do that and to, by fiat, by an arbitrary decision, put together who knows what. It certainly was not put together through the process of a legislative hearing. It was not put together through a process of a legislative debate. It was not put together through a process of a legislative vote in a committee, and a legislative vote on the floor of the Senate, and a legislative vote in the House, and a legislative conference, creating a bill which is sent to the President. No, it was put together by somebody sitting in a back row, writing an idea which was given to the Vice President of the United States, who went to a labor union annual meeting and announced, ``This will be the new law of the land.'' That is not the way we govern in a democracy. For that reason, I strongly support the initiative today put forward by our leader in the Senate, Senator Lott, which, said as I understand, the nomination of the Secretary of Labor shall not be brought before the body until this matter is cleared up, because that is our prerogative. That is our legal right as a representative of the people to advise and consent on the nominees for Cabinet positions. That is a legal and constitutional right. We have the legal and constitutional right to limit our advice and consent, and to not approve a member of this Cabinet, or to approve a member of the Cabinet. In this instance, we certainly have a right to hold up that nomination until this arbitrary act of excess on the part of the executive branch, done for whatever reason, is clarified and withdrawn. And, in fact, it would be my view that we should hold up probably just about every nomination which the administration wants to proceed with, because if they are not going to proceed in good faith in governing, if they are going to proceed in a manner which clearly exceeds the bounds of authority of the executive branch, then it is incumbent upon us as the legislative branch, as the branch elected by the people, to govern and to legislate, to make it clear to the President that that type of action will not be tolerated and cannot be tolerated if we are to maintain a constitutional democracy, a democracy built on the concept of checks and balances, a democracy which was designed by Madison and has survived so well for so many years. The issue has been laid out. The fight has been joined. I believe this Congress must assert its prerogative to retain its right as a legislative body of the people of this country. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce important and unique legislation known as the Women's Investment and Savings Equity Act, or the WISE bill. As chairman of the Republican Task Force on Retirement Security, I have worked with other task force members to explore various ways that the Federal Government might better facilitate adequate savings for retirement. I am extremely pleased that Majority Leader Lott convened this task force, and asked me to lead it, because the problem of ensuring adequate retirement savings has been one in which I have become increasingly engaged. I am extremely pleased to have had the assistance and cooperation of all of the other Senators in the task force. We are currently in the process of drafting a comprehensive package of legislation designed to increase retirement saving through a diverse variety of means. However, one of these legislative initiatives, the WISE bill, has struck us as being so important that it warrants separate introduction and action. I am very proud of this legislation, and I am gratified to see the rapid growth in support for it. One thing has become ever more clear in the course of our work: this Nation must increase retirement saving--at every level--in order to meet retirement needs in the 21st century. The problem for women is particularly severe. They live longer than men, and they have less saving. As a result, they are almost twice as likely as men to spend their retirement years in poverty. If you wan to see a demonstration of why it is important that we permit greater saving by women in their own name, all that you must do is to review the poverty rates for widows and divorcees. Overall, elderly women have a poverty rate of 15.7 percent. For men, the level is 8.9 percent. Divorcees suffer poverty rates of 29.1 percent, widows 21.5 percent. For too many women, it is the case that they enter their elderly years, after devoting much of their lives to raising a family, only to find themselves alone and without sufficient means of financial support. That is not right. Current law has an unequal impact on women because they are more likely to interrupt their periods of paid employment in order to raise children. When they finally do return to the work force, and when they finally may have surplus money for saving, the law places tight limits on what they can contribute towards their own retirement. We shouldn't force women to choose between attentive parenting and saving for retirement. Women shouldn't be more likely to enter poverty in retirement simply because they have taken time out from work to raise a child. Our legislation would do three things: First, it would strengthen the homemaker IRA law. We would permit homemakers--and other workers without a pension--to make deductible contributions to IRA, regardless of whether their spouse participates in a pension plan. This is good for saving. It is also good for women; we shouldn't deprive homemakers of the opportunity to save on the basis of their spouse's participation in a pension plan. This is an idea that already has broad bipartisan support. Second, we would permit catch-up contributions to 401(k) retirement plans--and other types of elective deferral plans--for parents who miss time from work for maternity or paternity leave. Under current law, if an individual goes on unpaid leave from work for service in the National Guard or certain other military service, they may make ``catch-up'' contributions to their 401-(k) or similar retirement plans for the time that they missed. We would make similar ``catch-up'' contributions available to cover the employee portion of contributions that would have been made by parents had they not gone on parental leave. This is good savings policy, and good family policy. Third, and this is the most creative aspect of the legislation: We would create higher contribution limits--in ``catch-up years''--for parents who have returned to work after a long period of nonparticipation in a pension plan. Consider a too-familiar story: A woman spends 15 years working at home, raising a family. Or--and let me stress that our provision applies in this case, too--maybe she works part-time, but she cannot contribute to a pension plan because she needs that money for day care. Either way, she spends a large amount of her life, unable to contribute to a pension plan. If she returns to the workforce at age 45 or 50, and her children are ``out of the nest,'' perhaps only then does she have surplus money to put into retirement savings. But current law is inflexible; she can't ``catch-up'' for the lost years. She is limited by a short number of working years, and tight annual limits on what she can contribute. Our legislation would simply do the following: For every year that you are unable to participate in a pension plan, and during which you are caring for a dependent child, you may take that number of ``catch- up'' years when you return to plan participation. During that catch-up year, you can make your normal allowed contribution to a 401-(k) or similar plan, and you can make an additional contribution of equal size to ``catch-up'' for a missed year. You can do this for up to 18 years. Working people have been telling us that they need some flexibility in being allowed to ``catch-up'' for missed opportunities to save. Not everyone has the money to save when they are 25. The problem is most severe for parents--for mothers. The least we can do is to make the law flexible enough to permit additional retirement contributions when they can afford it. These issues are not abstractions. For too many women, this is how life works. Maybe they suddenly become widows, or they go through a divorce. And they have forever lost their opportunity to generate saving in their own name. We see the results in the comparatively large number of women in poverty. This legislation would build additional flexibility into the law so that women--and all parents--are not penalized for making the choice to raise a child. Current law assumes that you have the same opportunity to save in every year of your life. That is just not so. Families with children often find it very difficult to save money, and this legislation would give them a chance to catch up when they reach a point where they at last can save. I believe this legislation is worthy of favorable consideration by the Senate. I also believe that prospects are good that we can pass at least a version of it. The chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, has contributed his valuable support, as has the chairman of the Labor Committee, Senator Jeffords. With the support of the leadership, and the support of the appropriate committee chairmen, I believe there is a basis for optimism that such overdue reforms will be passed by the Senate.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this past weekend we had a weekend of firsts. Tiger Woods became the youngest PGA player to ever win the Masters and in doing so broke the all-time scoring record of 270 and established the largest margin of victory--12 shots--in the tournament's 61-year history. On April 14, 1997, the Tax Foundation announced another first, Tax Freedom Day this year will be on May 9. What is Tax Freedom Day? Tax Freedom Day is the day when the average American stops working for the Government and starts working for themselves. This year's record date for Tax Freedom Day of May 9 is 2 days after last year's record of May 7 and up significantly since the Clinton administration took office in 1993. This year the average American will have to work a total of 128 days to pay his or her tax bill. That equates to 2 hours 49 minutes of each working day laboring to pay taxes. That's hard time any way you slice it. Over the years, April 15 has metamorphosized from being a trip to the dentist's office to being a major root canal without the novocaine. I rise today to introduce legislation that will change the date on which individuals file their Federal income tax returns from April 15 to May 9, Tax Freedom Day. While this legislation does little to bring about a change in the amount of money paid by the average American wage earner, I believe that issue would be helped greatly with the enactment of a balanced budget with tax relief. It does ensure that your taxes won't be due until you free yourself from crushing Federal taxes. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this past weekend we had a weekend of firsts. Tiger Woods became the youngest PGA player to ever win the Masters and in doing so broke the all-time scoring record of 270 and established the largest margin of victory--12 shots--in the tournament's 61-year history. On April 14, 1997, the Tax Foundation announced another first, Tax Freedom Day this year will be on May 9. What is Tax Freedom Day? Tax Freedom Day is the day when the average American stops working for the Government and starts working for themselves. This year's record date for Tax Freedom Day of May 9 is 2 days after last year's record of May 7 and up significantly since the Clinton administration took office in 1993. This year the average American will have to work a total of 128 days to pay his or her tax bill. That equates to 2 hours 49 minutes of each working day laboring to pay taxes. That's hard time any way you slice it. Over the years, April 15 has metamorphosized from being a trip to the dentist's office to being a major root canal without the novocaine. I rise today to introduce legislation that will change the date on which individuals file their Federal income tax returns from April 15 to May 9, Tax Freedom Day. While this legislation does little to bring about a change in the amount of money paid by the average American wage earner, I believe that issue would be helped greatly with the enactment of a balanced budget with tax relief. It does ensure that your taxes won't be due until you free yourself from crushing Federal taxes. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the Family Forestland Preservation Tax Act of 1997 on behalf of myself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. D'Amato, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire. This bill amends several key tax provisions to help landowners keep their lands in long-term private forest ownership and management. Without these changes, many landowners will continue to be forced to sell or change the use of their land. This bill derives from four years of work by the Northern Forest Lands Council [NFLC]. The NFLC was created in 1990 to seek ways for Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York to maintain the traditional patterns of land ownership and use in the forest that covers this Nation's Northeast. The Northern Forest is a 26-million-acre stretch of land, home to 1 million residents and within a 2-hour drive of 70 million people. Nearly 85 percent of the forest is privately owned. Times have changed, however, and social and economic forces have begun to affect the traditional patterns of land use with more and more land being marketed for development. This bill will help maintain traditional patterns and, thus, preserve the forest by adjusting several estate tax provisions. This bill would allow heirs to make postmortem donations of conservation easements on undeveloped estate land and allow the valuation of undeveloped land at current use value for estate tax purposes if the owner or heir agrees to maintain the land in its current use for a period of 25 years. This bill also would establish a partial inflation adjustment for timber sales by allowing a tax credit not to exceed 50 percent. This will encourage landowners to maintain their timberland for long-term stewardship, which is both economically and environmentally desirable. Also, the bill would eliminate the requirement that landowners generally must work 100-hours-per-year in forest management on their forest properties to be allowed to deduct normal management expenses from timber activities against nonpassive income. Currently, landowners are required to capitalize these losses until timber is harvested. This legislation, though prompted by the NFLC's work, will benefit not only the four states that make up the Northern Forest, but also all States with forest land and all who enjoy the multiple uses of forest land. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which will not only protect the historic current use patterns, but also allow the rustic beauty of our forests to be enjoyed by all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in introducing the Occupational Safety and Health Modernization Act. Let me say at the outset that in proposing and considering OSHA reform, worker safety was my first concern. I am firmly committed to ensuring a safe and healthy workplace and will not support legislation which puts that in jeopardy. I believe in this bill that I have accomplished a true modernization of OSHA without compromising the safety of our workers in any way. Throughout my career in public office, I have worked to make government more efficient and more user and consumer friendly. Federal Government agencies have grown so large and become so bureaucratic that they are often not providing the kinds of personal services and proper oversight that was originally intended when they were created. Too often Government carries a heavy stick, but no carrot, when it interacts with individual citizens and businesses throughout our country. I believe that it is high time we take a close look at how we can improve the way government works and, at the same time, provide incentives for the private sector to act more responsibly. Americans will be better served in a climate where people in government, and in business, can work together to solve problems in a spirit of cooperation, rather than in an atmosphere strictly of threats, intimidation, and punitive measures. When OSHA was enacted, its intended purpose was to make the workplace free from ``recognized hazards that are causing, or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to * * * employees.'' As is the case with many programs established by Congress over the years, OSHA has developed a well-earned reputation for over-regulation. OSHA has moved from its original purpose of protecting workers to hindering businesses with excessive mandates. While I feel that much of the problem within OSHA is of a cultural nature, the bill we are introducing today will concentrate on relieving OSHA's oppressive and burdensome regulations, thereby removing a feeling among American employers and employees that OSHA is the ``bad cop.'' My legislation puts in place partnerships for assuring safety and health in the workplace. This balanced approach will include a consultation program, voluntary compliance and third party certification, employee involvement, warnings in lieu of citations for nonserious violations, and reduced penalties for nonserious violations. This legislation will use incentives, rather than penalties, to enhance workplace safety. It will allow companies with clean safety records to implement their own health and safety programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to speak about a series of initiatives that I have introduced to try to address what I see as the major public policy concerns as we move into the next century, on the fiscal side of the ledger, that affect people in their lives. As we move out of the 20th century, we have seen a period where, certainly throughout most of the 20th century, there was a sense that, through a centralized Government, through an economy dominated by a Government, you could manage the lives and affairs of individuals and improve their lifestyle. Of course, the most exaggerated example of this was communism and the Russian revolution, which began the major Communist state of this century or any time. And it did not work. One of the great truths of the 20th century, of which there have been about three, one of the great truths is that communism--the concept that the state can manage the marketplace and make people better off by requiring that people function under a top-down system where their lives and their style of economic production is controlled by a central mechanism--simply does not function effectively. Instead of producing prosperity, it produced despair. Instead of producing freedom, it produced totalitarianism. So, one of the great truths that has come out of this century is that capitalism works, that the free market works, that giving the individual the incentive to be productive, by allowing the individual to retain a large amount of the product of their work, is something that produces prosperity for the individual and, as a result, produces prosperity for society. And a prosperous society is a freer society, we have also learned that. That is the second truth. Yet, our Government continues to function, even here in the United States, with a hybrid of the theory that a centralized decisionmaking process can handle major social and economic issues more effectively than the marketplace can handle them or the individual can handle them. In the 1930's and 1940's, we as a nation, our intellectual community, especially the Northeastern intellectual community, was caught up in the concept that you could manage almost every major social and economic problem from the top down. We were caught up in the concept that a few good minds put together in a room, thinking, could resolve issues of major concern for the society at large, especially fiscal issues. This led to a centralization of decisionmaking here in Washington throughout the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's, which reached its peak in the early 1970's, and gained momentum from that peak throughout the 1970's until the arrival of Ronald Reagan, who said, ``Let's stop and think a minute as to what we have done here and whether it has been successful.'' The conclusion was that many of the decisions to centralize the process of policymaking in the hands of a few here in Washington simply was not working, that it was not producing a resolution to the problems that were at the core of our society, and especially it was not helping the prosperity of the Nation and individuals who lived in the Nation in many ways. So, we have, as we move toward the end of this century, come to the conclusion that maybe a centralized Federal Government is not all that effective in solving all of our problems; maybe we should slow the rate of growth of this Government and return authority to the people and to the States. And that, really, is what the Republican revolution has been about. If we take that as true, and I do happen to believe that is one of the things that has been proven by time, now--it is not a question of philosophy or theory any longer, it is a time-tested, proven event-- then we still have some major issues to address, because some of the most significant social/fiscal issues which we have as a country today are still being driven in their policies as to how they are resolved by these concepts which came out of the thirties and the forties and the fifties of centralizing the decision in Washington and making the process of addressing those decisions a Washington-driven one. The three issues that are at the core of this, the three concerns that we as a society must have, from a fiscal policy standpoint--I am not talking about social policy; there are a whole set of other issues dealing with social policy--but from a fiscal policy standpoint of how Government deals with major issues, the three core concerns which we must have, as we head into the next century, are, one, how do we deal with Social Security; two, how do we deal with Medicare, which is a health care component for our senior citizens, and Medicaid; and three, our tax laws, how do we structure our taxes? All three of those issues, all three of those functions of Government which deal with the broad spectrum of the quality of life of a vast majority of Americans, are now dominated by a philosophy which grew out of the thirties, which was that a centralized, Government- decisionmaking process can better manage these systems than a decentralized, marketplace-driven approach. As a result, we have some chaos headed our way. We know that, under the present Social Security system, as a function of its present rate of return on investment and as a function of demographics, the system goes broke, taking the country with it, starting in about the year 2010. It goes broke in about the year 2020, but gets into what one might call a fiscal spiral beginning about the year 2017 which is not reversible. This is driven by the fact that returns on investment in Social Security dollars put into the trust fund have been extraordinarily low. They are basically a rate of return set by the Federal Government on special bonds given to the Social Security fund, which is where the Government borrows. Second, we have a population shift in this country, which is a function of the postwar, baby-boom generation, where we now have 3\1/2\ people paying into the system for every 1 person taking out, and in the year 2012, we will have 2 people paying into the system for every 1 person taking out, and this cannot support the present benefit structure when you have such a change. In addition, there is the fact that people are living longer. When Social Security was first created, people lived to be 61. The time was set at 65. That was Franklin Roosevelt's choice. He was no slouch and understood actuarial tables. Today, people live to be, on the average, male, 72, female 78, and it is going up. So we have a Social Security system which we know is headed toward bankruptcy due to demographics and due to the fact there is no prefunded system. It is a pay-as-you-go system with a very low rate of return on the investment. Then we have the Medicare system, which is going broke, managed by the Federal Government. Basically, it is a Federal Government program, single manager, single opportunity for seniors. They have to buy fee- for-service delivery. They have to buy a certain set of benefit structures. That system is going to go broke in the year 2001 at the latest; probably in the year 2000, only 3 years from now. It is going to go broke because of the fact that it is a system which is using a 1960's model of health care delivery in the 1990's. It is a system which still relies on fee for service when, in fact, we know that in the marketplace today, very few people use fee-for-service health care. Most people choose some sort of fixed-cost, prepaid health care plan, whether it is a HMO, PPO, PSO, or whatever. They choose some sort of alternative rather than going out to a doctor on a cost-plus basis who refers you to another doctor on a cost-plus basis, then refers you to another doctor, which is what the present system does. It is a classic program which was designed by Government bureaucrats in the 1960's which was probably outdated even then, but which has clearly not been updated for the 1990's and is going to go broke in the year 2000 because it is not structured for these times. That is the second system which represents a major issue of fiscal policy. Between those two, Medicare and Social Security, they will be accounting, between them, for almost 50 percent of the Federal budget by the year 2000, and by the year 2017, if you throw in interest on the Federal debt, they will be counting for all the revenues of the Federal Government. That is their size and their impact under their present structure. The third issue, of course, is our tax laws. Our tax laws are, again, a centralized decisionmaking process where we in Washington, a group of elite in the Government, choose winners and losers in the marketplace. We choose that this type of market activity will be a benefit and that type of market activity will be penalized because, for some reason, we think we can think better than the marketplace and individuals can think on how they should invest their money, and tax laws are structured to be a top-down, centralized, essentially Government-driven exercise in managing the marketplace through the Government. Of course, nothing affects the prosperity of a country more than the level of taxation and the manner in which you tax. So my representation is this. I have put together a package of bills which I call the American productivity renewal package, which addresses these three core issues of fiscal policy from a marketplace approach, instead of using the dynamics which have dominated these policies since the thirties, which is a Government-driven approach and which is a centralized-planning approach. Instead of using that approach, which has clearly failed and which is predicted to be a catastrophic failure as we move into the next century, I am acknowledging the fact, the truism of the 20th century, which is that the marketplace, not the Government, is the primary provider of prosperity within a society. These three proposals which I put forward involve, first, in the Social Security area, that we recognize that you cannot have a pay-as- you-go system with an unfunded liability of $3 to $4 trillion and an aging population that is exceeding the ability of the working population to pay for it and expect that system to survive. So what we need to do is to create a better return for those younger people who are now paying into the system on their savings. We need to be able to say to the working American who is under the age of 45, ``In order for you to get a decent Social Security retirement, we are going to have to have you earn more money on the dollars that you pay into Social Security and, more important, we are going to have to give you the ability to identify those dollars to yourself.'' Today under Social Security, if you pay a dollar in, the dollar goes out. You have no account. There is no savings account which says, ``Bob Smith'' or ``Mary Jones'' on it. It is basically a dollar in, dollar out, and, as a result, you have this huge unfunded liability. We need to prefund that liability, No. 1, so that people can have their own savings account designated to themselves. And, second, we need to allow people to get a better return than what is presently occurring under the present system, which is about a 3 percent rate of return, which is not inflation adjusted, so if inflation is more than 3 percent, it is no return at all. We need to allow people to get a better rate of return. What my proposal does, in the Social Security area it says today Social Security is running a surplus. It is running about a $29 billion actual surplus. It actually has about a $70 billion surplus, but half of that is interest which the Federal Government is paying on debt, so it is, basically, paying interest to itself. But there is actually about a $29 billion real surplus in Social Security, which represents about 1 percent of the 7.5 percent payroll tax people pay. So what my proposal says is that, rather than paying a 7.5-percent payroll tax, people will only have to pay a 6.5-percent payroll tax. They will get that percentage back, that percent difference back. They will have the right to take that percentage difference and invest it in a savings account or some other vehicle that allows them to produce income for their retirement. It will have to be a retirement account, like an IRA. And the practical implications of that are two: No. 1, people will start to generate a nest egg for retirement that will be real, that they will be able to look at every year when they get their statement; it will be there, and it will be able to generate a better return than 3 percent. And, No. 2, it has no impact on present-day Social Security recipients or people who would be receiving Social Security who are over the age of 45, because we are now running a surplus and we could pay the cost of their Social Security benefits without impacting them with this type of private account. It is using the marketplace and recognizing that the marketplace must be used to prefund the liability of Social Security. In the area of Medicare, this package of bills does something called choice, where essentially we say to the senior citizen, rather than having a program where the Government tells you who insures you, we will give you a program where, like a Member of Congress or a Federal employee, you can go out and choose who would insure you. They would have to give you a certain set of benefits and the benefits will have to at least equal what you are presently getting under Medicare, but you will be able to choose the benefit package you feel best meets your needs--you, the senior citizen. You will not be limited to one choice or, at most, two choices, which, at present, the present Medicare Program has. Equally important, what we are going to say to the senior citizen is, today it costs, for example, $4,800 for a senior to be on Medicare. To the extent that a senior can go out and find a health care plan which gives the basic benefits of Medicare, maybe even more benefits, but gives it to them for less than $4,800--say, $4,500--we will let the senior keep the difference, or at least 75 percent of it, that $300 between $4,800 and $4,500. What does this do? It creates three marketplace forces which will lead to making the Medicare system more solvent. No. 1, it means the senior becomes a cost-incentive buyer of health care. They think about where they are going to buy their health care. Granted, people who are already in the system who are in their late 70's or 80's probably are not going to change. But you have a whole group of seniors coming into the system who have been used to looking at a variety of health care options, so they will be comfortable doing this. But getting that 75 percent back of your savings makes them cost-incentive buyers. No. 2, it will create a marketplace which will compete for the seniors' dollars. Because, believe me, there are a lot of health care providers who deliver high-quality health care who would be very excited about the chance to buy into this. And, No. 3, it gives the Federal Government a predictable rate of growth as to how much health care is going to increase in Medicare accounts. And we, in order to make the trust funds solvent, do not need to cut Medicare. All we need to do is slow its rate of growth to about 7 percent, 6.5 percent--what is now a 10-percent rate of growth. That rate of growth, by the way, is still twice the rate of inflation and a multiple of 5, possibly, the rate of health care inflation. So this creates a marketplace atmosphere around which Medicare would compete and around which seniors could participate in their health care system and which would control costs and which would give seniors more choices than they have today, more options in health care than they have today. It recognizes the fact that, you know, a 1960 system, where the Federal Government basically picks who you can have health care with, simply does not work. You have to use the marketplace. The third element of this American productivity renewal package is to look at the tax laws and acknowledge the fact that the tax laws are arbitrary. They are as arbitrary as some bureaucrat in Washington could possibly make them, or some Member of Congress could possibly make them. Why should somebody be a winner and why should somebody else be a loser under the tax laws? Simply because a Member of Congress or somebody at Treasury decided unilaterally to affect the marketplace by making the decision that this person will be a loser and this person will be a winner, that is not right. That perverts the flow of capital; it perverts investment; it perverts the manner in which people go out and make decisions in the marketplace. It causes an inefficient use of dollars that are used to create capital and create savings. So we need a flatter system. We need a system that eliminates the vast majority of the deductions and says to the taxpayer, ``You can fill your form out on one page, one postcard, and in doing that, we won't control how you make decisions with your money. We'll take your taxes still, but we won't control whether or not you invest in this item or that item. That is simply a decision as to whether or not you're going to get better or worse tax treatment.'' And, thus, capital will flow much more efficiently to those items which are most productive and those items which will create the most prosperity, because that is the way a capitalist system works and a marketplace system works. So by addressing these three core issues of fiscal policy from a marketplace approach as versus from a centralized planning approach, which is what has been done for the last half century, we can, I believe, ready ourselves for the next century, make this country more competitive, and, most importantly, put the country in a position where our children will be assured that we are going to be a fiscally solvent place and a prosperous place for them to raise their children, rather than a place subject to the vagaries of a huge Government debt and inflation that would cause a bankruptcy of the Social Security system. Mr. President, I appreciate your time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, may I ask what the parliamentary status is?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.