Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Margaret MacArthur. Margaret has been selected to appear at the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts on May 1, 1997. She will be appearing as the sole representative of Vermont in an annual celebration which will host artists from across the Nation. Margaret represents the very best of Vermont. Her talent and hard work have been recognized time and time again. In 1985, she was selected by the New England Art Biennial as a New England living art treasure. Margaret's repertoire consists almost exclusively of Vermont and other New England folk songs. She embodies the spirit of our Green Mountain State and has successfully shared its heritage, through music, with people throughout the country. Once again, I would like to extend my best wishes and congratulations to Margaret MacArthur. Mr. President, I ask the following article from the Brattleboro Reformer be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Brattleboro Reformer, Dec. 6, 1996] Local Folk Artist To Perform at Kennedy Center (By Jared Bazzy) Marlboro.--Folk singer Margaret MacArthur has been selected to appear at the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., this spring, as part of the Vermont State Day celebration. U.S. Sen. James M. Jeffords, R-Vt., picked MacArthur to be the lone performer representing the Green Mountain State. Jeffords, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Education, Arts, and Humanities, said Thursday, ``Margaret represents what's best about Vermont's history and culture,'' adding, ``This is a wonderful opportunity for visitors from across the nation to hear a true Vermont artist share our heritage.'' MacArthur said she was invited a few weeks ago, just after she returned from performing at the Folk Song Society in Washington, D.C. ``But I've never sung at the Kennedy Center for gosh sakes. It's pretty exciting,'' she said in a telephone interview from her home in Marlboro. The Kennedy Center annually celebrates all 50 states with a performance by a local artist from each one. MacArthur will perform May 1, 1997. Accompanying herself at different times on guitar, dulcimer and harp-zither, MacArthur's repertoire consists almost exclusively of Vermont and New England folk songs. She was raised in the Ozarks of Missouri and moved to Vermont in 1948. She spends winters in Arizona. Therefore, she also sings many songs from Missouri, nearby Kentucky and Arizona. She said that she will certainly take along her harp- zither, which was given to her by the family of Rawsonville farmer Merle Landsman after it was found in his barn. She said she will perform songs from a collection of 7,000 Vermont songs compiled by Helen Hartness Flanders. Flanders was the wife of the late Sen. Ralph Flanders, and MacArthur enjoys the connection between their lives in Washington D.C. and her performance at the Kennedy Center. ``This will give me a good opportunity to honor her and her collection,'' she said. The New England Art Biennial, panel from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, chose MacArthur in 1985 as a ``New England living art treasure.'' Her recording career spans to the early 1960s, when she recorded ``Folksongs of Vermont'' on Folkways records. She has since recorded eight more albums, including several with members of her family, who also live in Marlboro. Recent local performance ventures included the Brattleboro Museum and Art Center, as part of a series on farming in Vermont. She is currently completing her 10th recording, which is being produced at Sound Design in Brattleboro and is entitled ``Them Stars.'' MacArthur believes it was her work as artist-in-residence in schools throughout the state that brought her to Jeffords' attention. As a visiting artist, she had children set local folk tales to music which culminated two years ago with the production of ``Vermont Heritage Songs.''

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I will proceed on the motion to proceed but I would ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut be allowed to speak for 2 minutes out of order and that upon completion I be able to resume my management of the bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I believe the Senator gave up the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the nomination was confirmed.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Is there any time remaining on the minority side?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I first of all want to thank the majority leader and majority whip for the expeditious way they have handled the resolution with respect to the Executive order. I know they dedicated the time necessary to make sure this got done as efficiently and as effectively as possible so we could move this nomination along. I also want to thank the members of my committee, especially the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for the way they controlled themselves and were able to, after a rather extensive amount of time required to fully review the nominee's record, bring this nomination before the body today. And of course, as Senator Kennedy mentioned, I cannot tell anyone how hard the staff worked on this particular nomination, probably harder than any other nomination at least in my memory, especially Ted Verheggen and Scott Giles of the majority as well as the minority staff, especially Mark Childress, whom Senator Kennedy mentioned. This took undue hours of committee staff time as well as members to review all of the material that was available. I am pleased now that we have brought this to a conclusion. I would point out that the Labor Committee was unanimous in its vote with respect to nominee, and I urge all Members to support a woman who I know will bring real credit to the office of the Secretary of Labor. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of time and ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator from Pennsylvania 6 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I inquire as to the remainder of time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the able majority whip.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today before the Senate to recommend that we approve the nomination of Ms. Alexis M. Herman to serve as Secretary of Labor. Ms. Herman's career has been filled with many firsts. In 1977, Ms. Herman was appointed by President Jimmy Carter to be the first African- American woman to lead the Women's Bureau. Twenty years later, Ms. Herman is poised to become the first African-American woman to serve as Secretary of Labor. To be appointed and confirmed as the Secretary of Labor is one of the greatest honors that our Nation can bestow upon an individual. It is an honor, however, that comes with a heavy burden of responsibility. Individuals who hold this office become stewards of the public trust and bear a great responsibility to the working men and women of America. It is my hope and my sincere expectation that Alexis Herman will preserve this trust and serve our country ably and effectively as Secretary of Labor. Ms. Herman will take the helm of the Department of Labor at a critical juncture in its history. The passage of welfare reform has made the strengthening of our job-training programs more important than ever. People must be able to obtain skills that will lead to secure jobs. Workers are entitled to fair pay in a safe environment. And while a great deal of attention is being focused on the future of the Social Security system, it is incumbent upon us to ensure the stability and expand the reach of the private pension system as well. I have devoted my career to these issues and I look forward to working with Ms. Herman to strengthen the Department of Labor's education and training programs and improve the quality of life of working men and women. It is because of my belief in and support for the mission of the Department that I have done my best to thoroughly review the background of this nominee. The pace may have seemed slow to some people but I was convinced then, as I am now, that it is better to take the time to do this job properly. Our efforts were complicated by ongoing revelations of White House fundraising activities and by the announcement that the Office of Public Liaison, which the nominee was heading, was, and continues to be, the subject of an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel. But our efforts are now complete and the committee recommends that the Senate confirm Ms. Herman as Secretary of Labor. Ms. Herman brings a unique set of skills and experience to the position of Secretary of Labor. In the mid-1970's she administered a pioneering program in Atlanta that helped minority women obtain white collar jobs. From 1977 until 1981, she served as the Director of the Women's Bureau under President Jimmy Carter. In this capacity she led the Department of Labor's efforts to identify and address the needs of working women across the country. Over the years, Ms. Herman has earned a reputation for her ability to build coalitions and work effectively with groups holding disparate and divergent political views. It is my hope that these skills will be used to seriously address our Nation's workplace and work force development needs as we prepare for the 21st century. We have an ambitious legislative agenda for this year--already the committee has reported S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, and S. 295, the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1997. These bills represent critical responses to the vast changes in the American workplace--changes that are unrecognized in a body of labor law unchanged since the Great Depression. Employers and employees should be working with, not against, each other whether it's figuring out a problem on the shop floor or in an employee's schedule. Over the next few months we will develop legislation to better integrate education and job training programs and we will begin to explore ways to improve the security and soundness of the private pension system. These legislative initiatives will have profound implications for the economic competitiveness of our Nation and for the quality of life of American workers. We will only succeed in these efforts if we have leadership from the Secretary and a firm commitment to avoid partisan politics in the interest of addressing critical national needs. I believe that Ms. Herman will be a full partner in these endeavors and that she will join us in our effort to improve the quality of life of working men and women. I look forward to working with her in her new capacity as Secretary of Labor. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the children of America need our help. Nearly 10 million children have no health insurance. Many of these children live in families with working parents who simply do not make enough money to afford health insurance. In order to help address this national problem, I am pleased to cosponsor, with many of my good friends and colleagues, the Children's Health Insurance Provides Security [CHIPS] Act. The CHIPS Act will provide Federal financial incentives to encourage States to provide uniform Medicaid coverage up to 150 percent of poverty for children of all ages. The Medicaid Program provides health care for poor children and pregnant women. My home State of Vermont, through its Dr. Dynasaur program, uses Medicaid and is now ranked second best in the Nation in providing health insurance coverage for children under 18 years of age. We felt it was important to improve our existing Medicaid system, a system which is already in place and currently provides health coverage to 16 million low-income children. Three million additional children are eligible to receive Medicaid benefits, but they are just not enrolled. We should fix that problem. We also feel that it is important to provide incentives to expand Medicaid coverage nationally to the children of families who are at 150 percent of the Federal poverty level--the working poor. This legislation builds upon the good work done in Vermont, and many other States, in ensuring that our children have access to health care. Our bill encourages States to expand current Medicaid eligibility for children and pregnant women to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level by increasing the amount of money that the Federal Government contributes to the Medicaid Program. States that elect to participate in the program will need to guarantee that all children are covered to at least 100 percent of the Federal poverty level and that all children are provided with 12 months of continuous medical coverage. The bill also provides grant money for outreach programs. States may design their own outreach programs based on their special needs and specific populations. We will help by simplifying the application process for Medicaid and other Federal programs for which these children qualify. One third of all uninsured children are eligible but not enrolled in Medicaid. Our bill, by emphasizing outreach and administrative simplification, will help get many of these children enrolled in the Medicaid Program. We must commit our efforts to giving children the best possible start in life. As a recent report entitled ``the Social Well-Being of Vermonters'' indicates, the foundations we lay for our young children will affect their later success in all areas of life. A healthy start begins with a healthy pregnancy and early, comprehensive prenatal care. Our legislation will give many children the health insurance coverage they need and, by doing so, help ensure a solid foundation for our country's future.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the children of America need our help. Nearly 10 million children have no health insurance. Many of these children live in families with working parents who simply do not make enough money to afford health insurance. In order to help address this national problem, I am pleased to cosponsor, with many of my good friends and colleagues, the Children's Health Insurance Provides Security [CHIPS] Act. The CHIPS Act will provide Federal financial incentives to encourage States to provide uniform Medicaid coverage up to 150 percent of poverty for children of all ages. The Medicaid Program provides health care for poor children and pregnant women. My home State of Vermont, through its Dr. Dynasaur program, uses Medicaid and is now ranked second best in the Nation in providing health insurance coverage for children under 18 years of age. We felt it was important to improve our existing Medicaid system, a system which is already in place and currently provides health coverage to 16 million low-income children. Three million additional children are eligible to receive Medicaid benefits, but they are just not enrolled. We should fix that problem. We also feel that it is important to provide incentives to expand Medicaid coverage nationally to the children of families who are at 150 percent of the Federal poverty level--the working poor. This legislation builds upon the good work done in Vermont, and many other States, in ensuring that our children have access to health care. Our bill encourages States to expand current Medicaid eligibility for children and pregnant women to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level by increasing the amount of money that the Federal Government contributes to the Medicaid Program. States that elect to participate in the program will need to guarantee that all children are covered to at least 100 percent of the Federal poverty level and that all children are provided with 12 months of continuous medical coverage. The bill also provides grant money for outreach programs. States may design their own outreach programs based on their special needs and specific populations. We will help by simplifying the application process for Medicaid and other Federal programs for which these children qualify. One third of all uninsured children are eligible but not enrolled in Medicaid. Our bill, by emphasizing outreach and administrative simplification, will help get many of these children enrolled in the Medicaid Program. We must commit our efforts to giving children the best possible start in life. As a recent report entitled ``the Social Well-Being of Vermonters'' indicates, the foundations we lay for our young children will affect their later success in all areas of life. A healthy start begins with a healthy pregnancy and early, comprehensive prenatal care. Our legislation will give many children the health insurance coverage they need and, by doing so, help ensure a solid foundation for our country's future.

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 and Safety, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Thursday, May 1, 1997, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``Biomedical Research Priorities: Who Should Decide?''. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375.

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 Labor and Human Resources will be held on Wednesday, April 30, 1997, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is equal opportunity in Federal construction. For further information, please call the committee, 202-224-5375.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, current law requires retired military personnel individuals in receipt of disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to offset any retired military pay for which they become eligible. Today Senator Daschle and I are introducing legislation that would gradually eliminate this offset based on the inverse of the retiree's disability rating. This offset requirement unfairly discriminates against career soldiers who become disabled by requiring them to fund their own disability benefits. As an example, a veteran with 60-percent service-connected disability would have to offset his retirement pay by the amount equal to 60 percent of his total VA disability. This compromise legislation would establish the right of a disabled military retiree to receive at least a portion of his earned military retirement while avoiding an insurmountable cost that, under budget rules, would require an offset in other funding areas of the Department of Defense. Current law does not take into account the obvious distinction between military retirement and disability compensation entitlements. Military retirement is paid to recognize a soldier who has dedicated 20 or more of his or her years to our country's defense. Disability benefits are intended to compensate a veteran for injury for injury incurred in the lined of duty. Because these two types of compensation serve two different purposes, receipt of one should not prevent a veteran from receiving the other. Congress has sought to deal with this issue over the years in a number ways--most of these attempts have brought with them unreasonable cost estimates. This legislation would ease the offset burden on retired disabled service members and still avoid significant expansion in the deficit. Also, because career military retirees are the only group of Federal retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability, the need to change current law is especially pressing. Inversely, disabled veterans who elect to leave military service and go into either other Federal employment or the private sector will, upon retirement, continue to receive their full disability payments, along with any earned retirement benefits. This bill is supported as a step in the right direction by the Nation's veterans service organizations, including the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Congress should move quickly to reverse this law prohibiting career military personnel who are wounded or injured during their service from receiving earned retirement benefits. I hope the Senate will act to end this unfairness once and for all by passing legislation to ease the offset. In allowing disabled veterans to receive military retired pay and veterans disability compensation concurrently, with an offset that is inversely related to the degree of disability, we will restore some fairness to Federal retirement policy cost-effectively. Our veterans have earned that and much more.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, current law requires retired military personnel individuals in receipt of disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to offset any retired military pay for which they become eligible. Today Senator Daschle and I are introducing legislation that would gradually eliminate this offset based on the inverse of the retiree's disability rating. This offset requirement unfairly discriminates against career soldiers who become disabled by requiring them to fund their own disability benefits. As an example, a veteran with 60-percent service-connected disability would have to offset his retirement pay by the amount equal to 60 percent of his total VA disability. This compromise legislation would establish the right of a disabled military retiree to receive at least a portion of his earned military retirement while avoiding an insurmountable cost that, under budget rules, would require an offset in other funding areas of the Department of Defense. Current law does not take into account the obvious distinction between military retirement and disability compensation entitlements. Military retirement is paid to recognize a soldier who has dedicated 20 or more of his or her years to our country's defense. Disability benefits are intended to compensate a veteran for injury for injury incurred in the lined of duty. Because these two types of compensation serve two different purposes, receipt of one should not prevent a veteran from receiving the other. Congress has sought to deal with this issue over the years in a number ways--most of these attempts have brought with them unreasonable cost estimates. This legislation would ease the offset burden on retired disabled service members and still avoid significant expansion in the deficit. Also, because career military retirees are the only group of Federal retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability, the need to change current law is especially pressing. Inversely, disabled veterans who elect to leave military service and go into either other Federal employment or the private sector will, upon retirement, continue to receive their full disability payments, along with any earned retirement benefits. This bill is supported as a step in the right direction by the Nation's veterans service organizations, including the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Congress should move quickly to reverse this law prohibiting career military personnel who are wounded or injured during their service from receiving earned retirement benefits. I hope the Senate will act to end this unfairness once and for all by passing legislation to ease the offset. In allowing disabled veterans to receive military retired pay and veterans disability compensation concurrently, with an offset that is inversely related to the degree of disability, we will restore some fairness to Federal retirement policy cost-effectively. Our veterans have earned that and much more.

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 and Safety, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Friday, April 25, 1997, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``The U.S. Healthcare Workforce: Realigning to Meet the Future.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is a day many of us have been waiting for for a long time. After having been thoroughly reviewed by the relevant Senate committees, both in the last Congress and this one, the Chemical Weapons Convention has finally come to the Senate floor for debate and a vote. This is a complex and controversial treaty and I thank Senator Helms, Senator Biden, and others for their hard work on the resolution of ratification. The 28 conditions and provisions on which they have agreed go a long way toward protecting American interests and making this an even better treaty. While I have reservations about the remaining five provisions, I am pleased that the Senate will have the opportunity to openly discuss and debate these before moving to a final vote. I believe that when the facts come to light, those who are undecided will vote to ratify the treaty. I think I can safely say that no one in this body supports the production or use of chemical weapons, even as a deterrent. That is not what this debate is about. What it is about is what we get for what we give up. In other words, is the extra protection from chemical weapons that this treaty affords us worth the financial cost and the regulatory burden required to implement the treaty? Well, let's take a look. First, what do we get? Above all, we get enhanced national security. The treaty requires all signatories to do away with chemical weapons and to refrain from any future production. We have already committed to destroy our own chemical weapons stocks, so why shouldn't we grasp an opportunity to require others to do so as well? I think this is a compelling argument. So do a few other people who know something about national security matters: General Powell, General Schwarzkopf, and every living former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Believe me, if this treaty weakened the United States in some way these distinguished Americans would not support it. With a reduction in the number of chemical weapons we also get increased protection for U.S. troops. We have a responsibility to our brave men and women in uniform to do all we can to protect them as they put their lives on the line for our freedoms. We spare no expense to provide them with the best chemical weapons defenses possible. By the same token, we should do all we can to reduce the actual threat of a chemical weapons attack on them. Recognizing this, a number of the country's most prominent veterans' groups and military associations have spoken out in favor of the CWC, including the VFW and the Reserve Officer Association. They recognize the extra protection this treaty provides our troops in the field. The CWC also improves our ability to detect chemical weapons production by others. This treaty boasts the most intrusive verification regime of any arms control agreement ever. Will it enable us to sniff out every violation, every criminal effort to produce these horrible weapons? Of course not. But it will give us a powerful new tool to check up on those who seek to employ chemical weapons, something that is important to the intelligence community. Opponents point out that U.S. intelligence agencies cannot absolutely guarantee they will be able to detect treaty cheaters. This is true. But it is also true that the treaty will significantly improve our ability to uncover violations. Let's not make the perfect an enemy of the good. Finally, the CWC also stiffens international resolve to deal with the chemical weapons threat. Every signatory will be required to enact legislation cracking down on terrorists and criminals who use or threaten to use poison gas, as well as the unsavory businessmen who traffic in these dangerous chemicals. Last week the Senate passed a bill which would tighten U.S. laws in this area. Isn't it in our interest, in this ever-shrinking world, to make sure that others also toughen their laws against chemical weapons production? Moreover, a broadly accepted international regime outlawing this class of weapons altogether will put us on a much stronger footing to respond to serious violations, including by force if necessary. So with the CWC we get enhanced national security, better protection for U.S. troops, improved ability to detect violations, and stiffened international resolve in addressing this global problem. That's a pretty valuable package. What do we give up to get it? Well, we must pay our share of the costs for administering the treaty and carrying out required inspections. We must also underwrite costs associated with preparing U.S. military facilities for inspection. I understand that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that implementation of the CWC would cost the U.S. taxpayer about $33 million a year. That's about one-twentieth of the amount that we spend every year on chemical and biological weapons defenses. I think that's a reasonable investment to reduce the core threat against which these defenses are needed. The treaty does impose additional reporting and inspection requirements on American businesses in the chemical field. This is regrettable but necessary if we wish to have a serious verification regime. It's worth noting, though, that the U.S. chemical industry was closely involved in the negotiation of the treaty and strongly supports it. I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed by smaller businesses affected by the treaty but believe that some treaty opponents have vastly exaggerated the additional regulatory burden involved. As I understand it, the vast majority of these businesses will need do no more than submit a short, basic informational form annually. And only a handful are likely to be inspected in any given year. This is a small price to pay for the many benefits of the treaty. Finally, I would like to address the argument that the United States should withhold ratification until Russia and all the so-called rogue states sign and ratify the treaty. The issue is not whether we should press these countries to join the treaty--of course, we should--but how to most effectively achieve this goal. Does anyone really think that withholding U.S. ratification will convince these countries to sign up? Standing on the sidelines with arms folded will only give encouragement to those who want to ignore this treaty and continue making chemical weapons. The United States is a world leader and should act like one. We should not allow thugs like Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein to dictate our approach to national security matters. Mr. President, this treaty is good for America and good for the world. It's not perfect. What international treaty is? But it serves our interests and improves our security. For these reasons, I will vote to ratify and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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 Labor and Human Resources will be held on Thursday, April 24, 1997, 10 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is overview of vocational education.

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 Labor and Human Resources will be held on Wednesday, April 23, 1997, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. committee on labor and human resources

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to raise my concerns also as expressed by the Senator from Georgia. I rise to express my continuing and growing concerns regarding the efforts of President Clinton and his administration to bypass Congress and impose the ultimate in top-down union organizing--union organizing by the President of the United States--on Federal construction projects. I am speaking, of course, of the widely circulated draft of a proposed Executive order that would result in most, if not all, federally funded construction being performed under a union project labor agreement. A project labor agreement would deter a major portion of the contractor universe--open shop or nonunion contractors--from bidding on construction work paid for by American taxpayers. Because the project labor agreement adopted pursuant to the proposed Executive order would require a contractor to enter into an agreement with a labor union as a condition of bidding on the Federal project, most open shop contractors, unwilling to impose a union on themselves and their employees, simply would not submit a bid. Thus, the union-only project labor agreement not only eliminates open competition for Federal contracts, an anticompetitive effect that would result in increased costs of Federal construction to the taxpayers, but also discourages open shop contractors from bidding on work that they are paying for with their own tax dollars. In addition to its anticompetitive impact, the proposed Executive order also would deprive nonunion workers of jobs in Federal construction, again jobs paid for out of those workers' wallets. Union agreements invariably require job seekers to obtain work through a union hiring hall. Hiring hall referral traditions favor longstanding union members. Others, such as the nonunion workers of the open shop contractor, would find themselves at the end of the referral line. This Executive order would penalize the overwhelming majority--majority--of construction workers in this country, who have not chosen to be union members. The proposed Executive order clearly is an effort by the administration to set national labor policy, a job that is delegated to the Congress by the Constitution--by the Constitution--of the United States and not to the President. The wisdom of this delegation of policymaking to the legislative process by the drafters of the Constitution is proven in the matter before us. The proposed Executive order raises many more questions than it answers, questions, I note, that, if subjected to the debate and factfinding of the legislative process, could be resolved. For example, what is the effect of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the ERISA, on a project labor agreement's provision that would require an open shop contractor to participate in a union pension plan? The contractor likely covers its employees in another plan, and the contractor's employees probably would receive no benefits from the union pension plan because they would not be vested before the completion of the federally funded project. Another example of a question best addressed by congressional review is whether the anticompetitive and overly restrictive provisions of the proposed order violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996, just recently passed. The proposed Executive order, however, raises even more fundamental questions regarding the continued vitality of our national labor policy that provides for Federal Government neutrality in matters of labor- management relations, a longstanding policy. This neutrality has been at the core of the national policy since the passage of the Wagner Act back in 1935. The administration, without the benefit of studied review and debate inherent in the legislative process, would reverse this policy and ignore the over 60 years--over 60 years--of its fine tuning by Congress and the courts. The administration's approach, that of lawmaking by Executive fiat, would answer these, and other questions posed by the Executive order, by litigation, not legislation. I expressed my strong support for S. 606, a bill introduced by Senator Hutchinson, that would prevent the exclusion of nonunion contractors from federally funded construction. I note that I am a cosponsor of this bill and look forward to its deliberation in the manner established by the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to take note of what is going on. This is a gross example of the abuse of the authority of the President through the Executive order. He tried this before. The courts knocked it down with respect to striker replacement. Here they come again with another proposal. This is extremely important for contractors, for the Nation, and for the taxpayer. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of Earth Day to introduce legislation to reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988, a historic conservation measure that continues to successfully preserve the African elephant in its natural environment. This legislation will extend the act through September of the year 2002. The African Elephant Conservation Act has resulted in the stabilization of elephant populations on the African Continent. By the late 1980's, the population of African elephants had dramatically declined from approximately 1.3 million animals in 1979 to less than 700,000 in 1987. The primary reason for this decline was the poaching and illegal slaughter of elephants for their tusks, which fueled the international trade in ivory. To address this problem, the U.S. Congress enacted the African Elephant Conservation Act to provide assistance to African nations in their efforts to stop poaching and to develop and implement effective conservation programs. To accomplish this goal, the legislation created the African elephant conservation fund. Since 1988, Congress has appropriated over $6 million to fund 48 conservation projects in 17 range states throughout Africa, with additional contributions of $7 million through private matching moneys. The African elephant conservation fund has resulted in the development and implementation of various elephant conservation plans. Today, elephant populations have stabilized and are on the increase in southern Africa, the international ivory trade has been dramatically reduced, and wildlife rangers are better equipped to stop illegal poaching activities. The conservation fund originally focused on anti- poaching efforts. Over the last several years, the projects have diversified to include elephant population research, efforts to mitigate elephant and human conflicts, the cataloging of ivory stockpiles, and the identification of new techniques for effective elephant management. It is important, however, to keep in mind that, while the African elephant conservation fund has resulted in several successful conservation projects, much work remains to be done to ensure that the African elephant continues to survive in its natural environment. We must work to ensure that the African elephant does not once again decline and disappear from its historic range. I am confident that additional conservation projects funded through the legislation will help to preserve this flagship species for many future generations. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act of 1997.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very real threat to the economic well being of our Nation. I speak, of course, of the anticipated issuance by President Clinton, of an Executive order that would likely lead to the exclusion of nonunion contractors from Federal construction. I also wish to express my strong support for S. 606, introduced today by Senator Hutchinson, which I have cosponsored. The strength and prosperity of this great Nation are in large part a result of the industrial peace between labor and management, that has been the norm since the passage, in 1935, of the Wagner Act. That act, and its progeny, form the keystone of our national labor relations policy. The bedrock belief supporting this policy has been to recognize that the parties--workers, employers, and unions--are in the best position to resolve their differences and to set and to achieve their goals. To this end, Congress has maintained a basic hands-off policy, preferring to set only the broadest boundaries, beyond which the conduct of the parties must not stray. I have to say that our congressional predecessors legislated wisely, for this policy of Federal Government neutrality has allowed the United States to become the envy of the industrialized world. This is not to say that there have not been bumps in the road to labor-management harmony. Congress has amended the Federal labor laws, and also has considered, and rejected, amendments to the Federal labor laws. Attempts by Congress to smooth the bumps, however, have been subjected to one overriding process--any changes to the laws that nurture the balance between the parties in the industrial arena will have been forged in the heat of legislative debate and advocacy. Today, sadly, the Clinton administration considers an action that would displace Federal neutrality, thereby renouncing over 60 years of national labor policy, and ignoring 60 years of fine tuning of that policy by Congress and the courts. Simply put, the Executive order being considered by the Clinton administration would result in most, if not all, Federal construction being performed by union shop contractors. This would give a whole new meaning to the term top down organizing. It would represent union organizing from the very top--the Presidency of the United States. Further, this Clinton initiative would occur without benefit of the legislative process, the process which in my opinion is mandated by the Constitution of the United States. And I find it even more disheartening that this end run by the administration, of the policy setting role of the Congress, seems less designed to serve the public interest than to advance political interests. Now, I understand that the administration will probably argue that the proposed order does not mandate the adoption of a project labor agreement, and therefore does not inescapably lead to union-only contractors on Federal construction projects. The administration would go on to argue that since the order requires the Federal agencies to make a finding that use of a project labor agreement would advance the Government's procurement interest, only where that finding is made would union agreements be required. This argument, however, is suspect. The introductory paragraphs of the draft order clearly indicate the President's preferences as to use of a project labor agreement. Since the boss thinks it is such a good idea, it is not likely that persons that the President selected to head the executive branch agencies would think otherwise. There is one other factor that is very important, and must be noted. Employment in the construction industry, particularly where union agreements are in place, is done through hiring hall referrals. If a nonunion contractor is forced, because of a project labor agreement, to become a party to a union agreement, it is not hard to picture what would happen to that contractor's employees. They would be at the back of the line when it comes to hiring hall referrals. This is despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of construction workers have not chosen to belong to a union. I, and my Republican colleagues on the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, have written to the President, asking him not to issue this or any similar Executive order. We noted that if the proposed order were adopted, it would undermine the benefits derived from a nondiscriminatory competitive bidding process, likely resulting in substantially higher Federal construction costs to the American taxpayer. We further pointed out that, if adopted, the order would cause harm to the important principle of employee freedom of choice to select or reject representation by a union. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record following my remarks. Finally, I congratulate Senator Hutchinson on introducing S. 606, and offer my full support in gaining its passage. The bill would prevent a Federal agency from requiring a bidder on a Federal contract to be a union contractor. Frankly, it is unfortunate that we need to legislate open competition, and outlaw this type of anticompetitive restriction, in the Federal procurement process. The Clinton initiative, however, demonstrates the need for S. 606. I further note, that no matter what one thinks of any specific provision of S. 606, my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, must be comforted to know, that before any changes are made by S. 606 to Federal labor policy, those proposals will be subjected to the debate, opinion gathering, and fact finding, that is the hallmark of the legislative process. And whatever comes out of that process will be better, for this Nation, because of that process.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join 31 of my fellow Senators in introducing a reauthorization of our Nation's transportation legislation, the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. This bill commits our country to sound transportation planning and development and reflects the vital role transportation plays in our expanding economy. In 1991, I was proud to be a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and an original author of ISTEA. This innovative law has resulted in the development of efficient and effective transportation throughout our country. ISTEA shifted decision making from Washington to local communities, enhanced air quality health standards, increased mobility and allowed our economy to grow in an intelligent manner. Today, I am equally honored to be involved in the introduction of ISTEA WORKS, the continuation of this successful law. This bill retains the basic structure of ISTEA, preserving the role of States and local communities in deciding transportation policies, continuing the emphasis on intermodalism and maintaining support for strong environmental provisions. The bill protects the important enhancements programs, expands the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program and improves safety. This legislation also addresses an issue important to Vermont and the Nation. As we have heard recently, Amtrak continues to struggle with its finances. Although I know Amtrak will survive, action must be taken to improve the system now. ISTEA WORKS grants States the flexibility to use Federal transportation dollars for operating and maintaining passenger service. This flexibility is important to Vermont, where we are running two of the most successful passenger trains in the Nation. The new authority will also enable our State to expand passenger rail and upgrade rail lines to benefit freight rail traffic. Mr. President, this is a historic occasion. With the introduction of this legislation, we begin to raise the awareness of the success of ISTEA and the urgent need to reauthorize this important legislation with few major changes.