Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to raise the awareness of the Senate as to the importance of being able to pass the D.C. appropriations bill today. The reason for that is that we have in this city a serious problem with the drinking water. And I will mention that in a little more detail in a moment. The bill is at the desk. It has passed the House. There is an appropriation in that bill to provide for immediate efforts to clean up the serious circumstances with the city's drinking water. I do not want to alarm anyone too much, but it is a health hazard to certain individuals who have immune problems as well as elderly people. In order to correct it, it is going to take some effort from private contractors, and it is going to take funds in order to contract with respect to certain pumps that may be broken in the efforts to flush the pumps out. In addition to that, we also have serious problems right now which need attention immediately, that is, we have public safety funds which have been increased in this bill. We have police cars right now on the blocks; we have fire engines in the shop and computer systems in chaos. There are funds in the bill which will allow us to do that and to get started immediately upon passage of the D.C. appropriations bill. Let me read to you from the report on the drinking water matter so that everybody is fully aware of the situation the city finds itself in: The conferees are deeply concerned about recent violations of Federal drinking water standards and continuing problems that beset the drinking water supply and the distribution systems in District of Columbia. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency recently completed a preliminary investigation of the water quality problems attributed to the District water distribution system and concluded that there is an urgent and immediate need for the District to implement steps to assure the integrity of drinking water quality in the District. Among the most important of these recommended actions is that the District hire a private contractor or contractors to flush the drinking water distribution system completely and to inspect and repair water valves. The conferees agree that there is a strong Federal interest in assuring that those who visit, live, and work in the Nation's Capital have safe drinking water. Accordingly, the conference agreement includes $1 million in Federal funds for this purpose under Amendment No. 2. These funds are provided to the Financial Control Board to contract with a private entity or entities to conduct an inspection, the flushing and repair work recommended by the EPA. The conferees direct the Control Board to consult with the Department of Public Works, D.C. Water and Sewer Authority, and EPA in implementing this activity. Further, the conferees encourage the Control Board to move expeditiously to contract for the work in anticipation of the funds provided. I just want to point out that if this bill passes, an immediate action will be taken to be able to correct the serious problems we have with the water in the city. So I hope that it would come to a point where we can pass that expeditiously today. The majority leader may or may not wish to call it up, but I want to let everyone know I am ready. It has passed the House. I want to assure all of the citizens of the District as well as those who visit us that we are doing everything possible and any delay would, again, impair the safety of certain individuals in the District, and I hope that does not occur. In addition, we are ready to move on this, and it is important for the city to get into a position where they know where they stand. There are significant differences that have been reconciled in favor of the city with respect to the amount of funds that will be available and to other matters. So I am hopeful that we will be able to take this bill up. It is ready to go. We are ready to act on it now and we could have this down to the President for his signature this afternoon if and when it is brought up there is no objection, and I hope that would be the case. Mr. President, I just hope that everybody is aware of the serious problem we are dealing with and that any attempt to forestall this would imperil people and I hope that will not occur. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the legislation upon which we are about to vote. We have been working on this bill for a year and a half and we've been back to the drafting table several times. Today, though, we're going to pass this bill and we have the President's assurance that he'll sign it. I am truly pleased to have been part of this historic effort, and I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work and dedication to reforming welfare. Does my support mean that I believe we've got the perfect bill and all of our concerns have been addressed? Do I think we've finished the job and we can forget about welfare for another thirty years? Certainly not. No one thinks that this is the perfect approach to reforming welfare. Many of us would like to see less in cuts to food stamps; we would prefer more support for children. In particular, we're emphasizing work in a way that we never have before--and let me stress that I think we are emphasizing that goal, and I commend the bill on that point. Even so, we're not doing nearly as much as we need to do to ensure that jobs are available for people, and that people have the education and training they need to fill the available jobs. We've spent a fair amount of time and energy this session talking about job training. As we all know, reconciliation on this issue has eluded us to date. We must address this issue. The first thing people need to get and hold down a job is a good education. Too often, I think, we assume that to mean a college education. That is not necessarily true. In the next Congress, I hope we will renew our discussion of how to link education and job training so that people are able to fulfill the expectations of the jobs that are available. Our international competitors have been leaders in making the important link between education and work. Germany for example, has long been a model for vocational education. As early as the sixth grade, students opt for a college-prep or vocational education program. Over and over we've said people need to get off welfare and get back to work. I agree with that. We've said ``you can always get a job at McDonalds.'' There are two flaws with this flippant argument. One is that a person doesn't earn a living wage at a fast-food restaurant--but we've had that debate. The other flaw with the argument is that even the fast food industry jobs are not as available as we'd like to believe. A 1995 Columbia University study of fast-food minimum wage job openings found that 14 people applied for every opening. Among those rejected, 14 percent hadn't found work a year later. What are we going to do for these people? What are we going to do about this problem? While this bill makes some nods in that direction, I think perhaps its biggest failing is it fails to recognize all the work we need to do to get people back to work. So far, the necessary resources in education and job training far exceed the available resources. Job training and education are an investment that will yield us incredible returns. Last year the Department of Education released a study that found that ``a 10 percent increase in the educational attainment of a company's workforce resulted in an 8.6 percent increase in productivity. Whereas a 10-percent increase in the value of capital stock such as tools, buildings, and machinery only resulted in a 3.4 percent increase in productivity.'' I won't belabor this point, but education and job training are issues I will continue to work on, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I think all of us realize that it will be our responsibility to monitor the effects of this bill, to improve and enhance those provisions that seem to work well, and to revisit those provisions that are unproductive or fall short of what's needed, such as those surrounding job training and education that I have just highlighted. This bill is not perfect. Even so, the system we have now is not working and we need to move forward now. The bill before us takes important steps in the right direction, and is clearly preferable to the welfare program we've arrived at after 30 years under the old system. We enacted this system 30 years ago to combat poverty, and the truth is--this system hasn't worked. In 1965, 3.3 million children received AFDC benefits. In 1990, 7.7 million kids received AFDC benefits, and in 1994 9.6 million children received AFDC. At the same time, between 1965 and 1990, the actual number of children in the United States declined by nearly 5 million. Clearly, the current system isn't working, and because of that there is strong support in this country and in this Congress to reform welfare. Furthermore, the current system has developed into one that permits, even encourages, a lifestyle of dependence. Under the system we have now, 65 percent of families on welfare will be dependent for at least eight years. One in eight children in this country is on welfare, and nearly one in five mothers in inner cities is on welfare. Without welfare reform, millions more children will grow up dependent on welfare. Under the current system, children who grow up in families dependent on welfare are twice as likely to rely on welfare when they become adults. It is clear that for many people, welfare has become a way of life. The bill before us will terminate reliance on Federal assistance as a way of life. We end this reliance by terminating cash assistance after 5 years of receiving benefits. After two years, we require people to get jobs. This is real welfare reform. Time limits are unprecedented at the Federal level. Five years of benefits allow adequate time for most people to get their feet under them and get back on the road to supporting themselves. But even after 5 years the line is not a hard and fast one. There can be exceptions. The bill allows a 20 percent hardship exemption for the really difficult cases. So even though we say ``5 years and you're off,'' even then there's some leeway. Another strength of this reform bill is that it retains the Federal safety net for nutrition benefits. One of the changes I worked hard on in the Senate version of the bill was the food stamp block grant. We eliminated the block grant option last week, and the conference bill retains the food stamp entitlement. The entitlement ensures that food stamps will always be available to our most vulnerable populations: children, the very poor, and the elderly. And food stamps will be available even after the eligibility for cash assistance has ended. I want to thank my colleagues for joining me and voting to strike the optional block grant. Another difference between this bill and the ones we've considered previously is the money provided for child care. This bill fulfills the Governors' and the President's request for additional child care funds, and as a result we'll be spending $4.5 billion above current law on child care. In addition, the bill retains minimal health and safety standards for child care, and it maintains a quality set-aside from child care block grant funds so we might better focus on encouraging and developing good child care for our children. Finally, this bill requires that the Secretary report to the Congress on how children are affected by welfare policy change; additionally, it requires the states to report on their child poverty rates. If the child poverty rate increases by more than 5 percent, then immediate corrective action is required. I mention all of these factors because they contribute to my willingness to support this bill, and also because they illustrate that the drafters are concerned about children and intend to monitor the effect of this bill and follow up to ensure that we are bringing about the positive change we're attempting to achieve. In conclusion, let me speak briefly on how this bill will affect Vermont. I was pleased to learn that the Governor of my home State, Gov. Howard Dean, has spoken positively of this bill. While he shares the concerns that many of us have, Gov. Dean thinks that Vermont can come out ahead under the provisions of this bill. Vermont is currently operating its welfare program under a waiver. Not only does this bill allow the State to continue its first-in-the-nation reform project, the Governor recognizes that the calculations used to determine the size of the Federal block grants mean that Vermont will have more money to spend on its welfare program. While I am on this subject, I would like to take a moment to voice my support and praise for those states, like Vermont, that have already undertaken welfare reform through waivers and demonstration projects. I am pleased that we will allow those waiver projects to continue. But let me urge clarification on what I consider to be a confusing and counter-intuitive provision in the bill. Under the provisions of the bill setting forth the guidelines for the temporary assistance for needy families block grants we have a section that gives States the option of continuing the waiver projects already underway. In fact, the section goes so far as to require the Secretary to encourage any State operating under a waiver to both continue the waiver and to evaluate the result of the waiver so that other States may make use of the valuable information to be gained from these demonstration projects. However, under the hold-harmless provisions of this waiver section, we seem to forgive the accrued liability of States that choose to terminate their waiver projects. Our intent, I believe is to forgive the accrued liability of those States, like Vermont, that choose to continue their waiver projects. To take any other stance except one that also wipes those slates clean would give States incentive to terminate their waivers. States like Vermont that are already conducting demonstration projects should be encouraged and supported in their efforts to continue those projects. I understand that there may be an opportunity to revisit that issue soon, and I urge my colleagues to ensure that we're creating incentives to continue the waivers that are promising, rather than offering incentive to terminate those projects. Another aspect of the bill that is very important to Vermont is the assurance that, as under current law, LIHEAP benefits will not be counted as income for purposes of determining food stamp eligibility. This provision is very important to poor people in cold regions of the country who may rely on both LIHEAP benefits and food stamp benefits. There was a provision in both the House and Senate bills that would have forced people to choose between heating and eating, and I thank my Senate colleagues for accepting my amendment to strike those provisions. I also want to thank my colleagues who worked on the conference committee for working to maintain the Senate bill provisions on this issue. Mr. President, I agree with my colleagues who say this bill has flaws, and I look forward to working with them next year and in future years as we continue to work towards the proper balance between self- sufficiency and Gvernment assistance. In spite of its weaknesses, I think this is a good bill. We've worked hard over the past year and a half to get to this point and I think we've made some very positive changes that will help all Americans to be productive and contributing citizens. I will be pleased to vote ``yes'' on final passage.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain amendment. It is clear what he is trying to do is kill Amtrak. This is wrong. Amtrak is integral in transporting people across this great country of ours--not just in the Northeast, although the Northeast, which has horrible problems with traffic and air pollution and everything connected with it, needs to go to railroads, needs to utilize the railroads more than it does now for personal transportation. In addition to that, with the overload on our airplanes, trying to shuttle back and forth to New York and to Boston, the fast trains, which this would essentially eliminate, will resolve that horrible problem, much to the benefit of the people in this Nation. Amtrak can survive on its own. We are working toward that goal. Over the last 2 years, Amtrak has restructured itself and is working to be free of Federal support in 5 years. I think they will make it. Mr. President, do not kill our national railroad now. Give Amtrak time to build up the business and let Congress be responsible and pass the Amtrak authorization bill and move the half-cent gas tax to Amtrak. We must not eliminate Federal support until these plans are in place, until they have been given a chance to demonstrate they can work. I am confident they can. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to thank the managers of this bill for their assistance with this important amendment. Inel

Mr. JEFFORDS. Is it also your understanding that of this $23.072 million in the amendment, $16.5 million shall be for an increase in wind energy systems of which $2 million shall be for the Kotzebue, Alaska project. In addition, the amendment would provide increases of $2.0 million for international solar, $1.5 million for solar thermal; $1.0 million for resource assessment; $1.072 million for the renewable energy production incentive program; and $1 million for the utility climate challenge program.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee regarding the amendment that was adopted yesterday restoring funding to the solar, wind, and renewables account. Is it the chairman's understanding that $23.072 million has been transferred into the solar and renewables account in this appropriations measure, leaving a total of $269.713 million for the solar and renewable energy account.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this legislation for working with me to protect our country's renewable energy programs. The amendment I offered, along with Senators Roth, Leahy, Murkowski, Chafee, Bumpers, Daschle, Kohl, and Conrad, will essentially maintain fiscal year 1996 spending levels for most solar, wind, biomass, and other renewable energy programs. The amendment restores $23 million to these accounts, preserving our nation's main efforts to attain energy independence. Mr. President, the United States imports in excess of 50 percent of the oil we use to power our homes, automobiles, and workplaces. Our dependence on this foreign oil continues to be a risk to our national security and is running up our trade deficit. Despite this fact, we continue to reduce funding for the few programs which lead us down the path of energy independence. In the legislation we are debating today, funding for solar, wind, biomass, and renewable energy programs is cut by almost 30 percent and a number of important programs are eliminated completely. I am very aware of the constraints the managers of this legislation have had with this bill and I commend them for their efforts. However, I feel strongly that this Nation and this congress should continue to support investment in renewable technologies. The cost of wind, photovoltaics, solar thermal, and biomass have dropped more than ten fold over the last 15 years. Wind energy, which has been cut 50 percent from last year's levels in this bill, has developed into the major alternative energy contributor. Over 5,000 megawatts of wind energy electricity has been installed to date-- or energy equal to five nuclear power plants. Due to cost-shared research and development on materials, turbine blade design, and manufacturing, the U.S. wind industry leads the world in the lowest-cost and most efficient wind generators. The combined research and development budget of the European Community equals $130 million. This legislation provides the entire research and development funding for our renewable efforts, which is only while this bill provides only $15 million. Clearly this is inequitable and does not provide a sufficient threshold to continue the basic research and cost- shared applied research necessary to maintain the lead in both the domestic and global markets. The amendment I am offering will provide $31.5 million for wind programs, $1 million lower than fiscal year 1996 levels. Our Nation should be proud of its lead in developing advanced wind energy systems. My State of Vermont certainly takes pride in its growing wind industry. One of our utilities, Green Mountain Power, has been a national wind energy leader, and is currently constructing a 6 megawatt project that will utilize eleven 550 kilowatt turbines manufactured by Zond Systems of California. The Zond turbine has been participating in cost-shared development with the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Wind Technology Center at NREL. Green Mountain Power's Vice President, Norm Terreri, is now serving as president of the American Wind Energy Association. Vermont is also home to NRG Systems, of Hinesburg, VT, one of the world's leading high technology manufacturers of wind measuring devices and a company that has made export sales in over 50 countries. Atlantic Orient, of Norwich, VT, has manufactured a 50-kilowatt wind turbine in cooperation with the Department of Energy that has become one of the most popular turbines for wind-diesel hybrid locations for remote locations such as Alaska and the Canadian Arctic. The New World Power Technology Company of Waitsfield, VT, is a leading manufacturer of wind-PV village power systems. Wind companies around the country, like those in Vermont, look to the Federal Government for support in this new, booming market. We cannot let these companies fall behind their European or Asian competitors as this market expands. Solar thermal electricity has been on a major growth spurt, with the United States leading the world. In June, the Solar Two project was ribbon-cut in California. At this site, the heat from solar mirror concentrating sunlight atop a tower is stored in nitrate salt which can then create steam-to-electricity day or night, rain or shine. A solar dish/engine manufacturing facility was ribbon-cut in Texas. Both projects came from cost-shared research and development at the Department of Energy. In this bill we are including funding for solar industrial research and development to bring this same technology to industrial process heat, new material creation from photon concentration, and some interagency cost share research on solar detoxification. Over 70 percent of photovoltaics are exported overseas and over 50 percent of wind, solar thermal, geothermal, and biomass equipment and services are exported primarily to third world countries. To this end, the amendment has included $1.5 million directed explicitly to continue the work of the Federal interagency activity called the Committee on Renewable Energy Commerce and Trade [CORECT] signed into law by President Reagan to ensure that the U.S. Government coordinates its export capabilities. The European Community and Japan provide subsidized export financing to their respective industries and other incentives which equal hundreds of millions of dollars of support. The funding for this program is to make U.S. Federal agencies maximize their efficiency by utilizing existing programs to promote the exportation of renewable energy equipment and services. Nearly 2 billion people on the globe do not have access to electricity and this program has made great strides in rectifying that situation. To that end, three new automated manufacturing facilities in the United States have been recently ribbon-cut to manufacture photovoltaics for this growing overseas market. This bill also provides support to an effective program at the $1 million level for the Renewal Energy Production Incentive [REPI]. REPI provides support to municipal electric utilities and rural electric cooperatives to utilize solar and renewable energy. This program was established under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 because at that time only private utility subsidiaries could access the solar and geothermal tax credits. REPI allows the rest of the industry an equivalent program to utilize tax credits. The response from the municipal utilities and cooperatives has been enthusiastic and this program has over 18 renewable energy projects underway. Another voluntary program is also funded at $1 million level for all utilities to integrate renewable energy in an effort to offset emissions that have wrought global climate change. The Utility Climate Challenge Program has been supported by all of the electric utilities as a stellar example of the way Government should work--encouraging innovation rather than command-and-control measures. The final program funded is the Resource Assessment Program at $1 million. This is a program carried our primarily by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] which analyzes satellite and other data for those that want to know the extent of renewable energy in their area, whether that be solar, wind, biomass, or geothermal. This program can only be carried out by national laboratories and would put our industries at a competitive disadvantage if not explicitly funded. Mr. President, this amendment is an extremely modest investment to preserve U.S. energy options, create U.S. jobs, and protect our environment. I commend the managers of this bill for recognizing the importance of these programs and for supporting this amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I share the concern of my friend, the Senator from Georgia, about the urgency of improving the effectiveness of our anti-narcotics efforts. The threat of international drug trafficking is very real and our efforts to combat it must become more effective. I agree with many of the Senator from Georgia's criticisms of the current program and believe that significant improvements must be made in the results of our anti-drug program. The bill before us provides a 40 percent increase in funding for these programs, reflecting the committee's concern that there must be a strong response to the escalation of narcotics trafficking. This is a significant increase that will allow considerable expansion of U.S. efforts abroad. Yet, the amendment before us would shift an additional $53 million to the counter-drug account. These funds would come from a $25 million cut in the International Operations and Programs account and a $28 million cut in development assistance. Unlike the international narcotics control programs, both the international organizations and programs account and development assistance have sustained significant reductions in the past years. In particular, the international organizations account was sharply reduced for fiscal year 1996, forced cuts in our contributions to organizations such as the United Nations Development Program, the World Food Program, the United Nations Environmental Program and many other worthwhile international organizations. Development assistance has also been reduced in the past years. This includes funds for Africa, for sustainable development programs to increase world food production, to reduce environmental devastation. This account also funds child survival and disease programs, international debt restructuring and micro enterprise programs--all very worthwhile programs. The problems that these programs seek to solve are equally deserving of our attention, and in many instances, eventually would pose grave problems for the United States if they are ignored. Mr. President, it is indeed a difficult task to balance the competing priorities of this legislation, all of them very valid in their own right. However, I urge my colleagues to resist this temptation to alter the careful balance that has been struck by the committee.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the fiscal year 1997 District of Columbia appropriations bill to the Senate. This budget is, I hope, one more step in the District's path to fiscal stability and financial health. Our goal, in this bill and every one to follow, must be a city worthy in every respect to be the symbol of our Nation--from its streets, to its schools, to its safety. The District of Columbia is at a critical juncture. If we do not exercise great care over the next few years, we will be left with a Potemkin Village on the Potomac--one with gleaming monuments and grinding poverty. The bill presented is within the subcommittee's allocation and contains a Federal payment of $660 million. This is the authorized level and the same amount as was appropriated for 1995 and 1996. The bill also contains $52 million in Federal contributions to the pension funds for police officers, firefighters, judges, and teachers. The Federal Government accepted this commitment when it transferred these pension funds to the District over a decade ago. Finally, the bill contains some $5.7 million for reimbursement for expenses resulting from next January's Presidential inauguration. As my colleagues will recall, the District's financial situation had so deteriorated that last year we established a control board for the city. A little over a year ago the President appointed the five members of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority and its work began. The budget before us is the first to fully benefit from the work of the Financial Authority and the process established by its authorizing legislation. The Mayor, the city council, the chief financial officer and the Financial Authority have worked together and produced a budget which each supports. The committee's bill adopts the consensus budget without change. I think we should respect the process we established in the control board legislation and defer to the budget presented us. I think this budget is a sound one. It restrains spending, which is up from about $5 billion this year to some $5.1 billion next year, and relies on much more conservative assumptions than some past budget submissions. The budget reduces spending in some areas, and increases it in others, such as public safety. As we trim spending, I think it is vital that we support spending in such core functions as public safety and education. To further insure fiscal integrity, this bill removes any ambiguity in the authority of the CFO. The committee intends that he shall oversee all financial personnel in the executive branch, excluding the independent agencies. Section 148 of the bill contains an important provision authorizing the director of the District of Columbia Energy Office to negotiate energy performance contracts, the terms of which can extend up to 25 years. Under current law, the District is limited to entering 1 year or short term contracts which acts to discourage companies from entering such contracts. The Department of Energy's [DOE] Federal Energy Management Program is an ambitious program to reduce energy consumption in all Federal buildings and installations. Agencies and Departments invite energy service companies to install energy efficient lighting, heating, and cooling systems. The companies provide the investment capital and their payback comes from a portion of the money saved when the Agency's energy bills are lowered. A good example of the program's success is the DOE's headquarters building recently relamped without any Federal appropriation. It lowered the cost of operating the Forestall Building, reduced energy costs and saved taxpayer money. The District's public buildings and particularly its public schools are in desperate need of repair and rehabilitation. With energy performance contracting authority, the city can attract capital improvement investments from energy service companies prepared to install energy efficient equipment. Under this program, we can reduce the District's $50 million annual energy bill without the need to appropriate funds. Many school districts across America have come to rely upon this contracting mechanism and it is time the District of Columbia has this authority. While this would provide the District with greater flexibility, these contracts would be subject to the same review by the Financial Authority for all other contracts. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues on the subcommittee, Senator Kohl and Senator Campbell. I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Senator Hatfield, and our distinguished ranking member, Senator Byrd, for their leadership and assistance on this bill. Finally, I would like to briefly thank a former Senate staff member, Mr. B. Timothy Leeth, for all of his work on this bill and so many appropriations bills before it. As my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee know, Tim joined the committee staff in 1977 and has served during most of his tenure as the clerk of the District Subcommittee, Congress after Congress he would inherit new chairmen and committee members who probably, like me, know very little about the details of the District's operations. With extraordinary patience, intelligence, and good humor, he would suffer the same questions from each one of us year after year. He worked hard and well for members on both sides of the aisle, of all different political philosophies, in a thorough and professional manner. He was, and remains, an outstanding public servant. We will miss his efforts on behalf of the committee and the Senate, but the District of Columbia is fortunate that it will continue to benefit from his work. Mr. President, I yield the floor,

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, first, let me thank my colleague from Kentucky, the chairman of the subcommittee, for the excellent job he has done in structuring a good and fair bill in the face of severe constraints. While it is not everything that any of us would like, he has been very attentive to the concerns of his colleagues and I appreciate his efforts. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Illinois. The Senator has been an effective, outspoken, and persistent defender of assistance to Africa throughout his congressional career. He, together with the senior Senator from Kansas, have been true friends of Africa, wielding a stick when appropriate and assuring that the United States follows through with humanitarian and development assistance where appropriate. Africa has made dramatic strides over the last two decades, thanks in some part to the constant efforts of these two Senators. They will be sorely missed both in this body and around the world. The amendment before us is a modest one. It does not change the funding levels laid out in the bill. It does not earmark a specific dollar amount, but ties funding for the Development Fund for Africa to the overall level of funding in the development assistance account. This amendment does not stake out a bigger pot for Africa, it merely ensures that Africa will receive the funding that both this committee and the administration agree it should receive. I appreciate the efforts that have been made by the chairman to restructure the foreign aid accounts and reduce earmarks. What this amendment seeks to do, however, is to ensure that aid to Africa, the world's most needy continent, is sustained. Traditionally, funding for Africa has fallen victim to sudden needs elsewhere in the world. This amendment would protect Africa from suffering a disproportionate share of future cuts. Our assistance to Africa is designed to help various nations achieve important goals over the long term. These goals cannot be reached if our financial support fluctuates wildly. The problems we are combating on the continent are entrenched, and will only be rectified if we have staying power. Unlike other areas of the world, we cannot hope to achieve our goals in Africa simply by doing short demonstration projects and assuming that the example will spark comprehensive reform. Reform in Africa takes significantly more work. But the rewards should be significantly greater as well. It has tremendous potential for political evolution, economic development, and growth of markets. In addition to reducing human suffering and bringing greater stability to a large area of the world, success in Africa will prove to be very important to us and our economy in the future. I appreciate the efforts that the chairman already has made to make assistance to Africa a priority. But I hope that he will agree to accept this amendment as a modest way to ensure this does not change.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, and the senior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Hatfield. This amendment would significantly reform the criteria by which U.S. arms sales are evaluated and enhance the roll of Congress in the process. Under the Arms Export Control Act, arms sales are reviewed for their compliance with several criteria, including whether a foreign government respects human rights and avoids acts of international aggression. Under this amendment, consideration would also be given to whether a government adheres to democratic principles and whether it participates in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. And under this amendment, Congress would review and pass judgement on any sale that the Administration has approved to a nation that did not meet these requirements. While Congress technically has the option to disapprove of any sale that does not meet the criteria of the Arms Export Control Act, in fact, it rarely exercises that right, and little attention was paid to many controversial sales. At no time was a comprehensive review of pending arms sales actively examined and approved by Congress. This process is no longer acceptable, and the changes that this amendment would bring to this process are welcome. Yes, the Cold War is over, but we all realize that in many respects, the world does not seem like a safer place, in part because American arms are helping to fuel conflicts around the world that we then must try to resolve. An obvious way to reduce the frequency of this happening is to more closely scrutinize the sales being made to countries who do not share our basic ideology and respect for human rights. And the Congress should be given a greater role in this process. I urge my colleagues to support the Dorgan-Hatfield amendment. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise in support of the Northern Forest Stewardship Act and commend Senator Leahy for his leadership on this initiative. It was almost a decade ago that a sudden sale of a large tract of forest land in northern Vermont and New Hampshire forced people to take notice of the value and vulnerability of the timber lands in an area which has become known as the Northern Forest. Foresters, conservationists, and recreationists became somewhat alarmed at the prospects that these forest lands, long valued for the aforementioned traditional uses, might instead be parceled and sold to bidders whose intentions and values did not necessarily match those of the landowners who had long provided stewardship of these lands. The States of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont marshaled their resources and convened a study group to investigate the nature and extent of the matter. We learned, frankly, that some of our concerns were overstated. A study of land transfers did not reveal an imminent threat of large scale land sales. But we also learned how fragile the economics of forestry has become. And if the business of forestry cannot be sustained, then neither can we take for granted the benefits of the wooded lands. So the Northern Forest Lands Council studied these issues in depth and in 1994, issued its recommendations. These recommendations, it is important to note, reflect a consensus among many sectors concerned with forest issues. The council worked hard to ensure a high level of agreement between diverse constituencies, and we here in Congress have sought to continue in that mode. We have followed two tracks to implement the consensus recommendations, and the Northern Forest Stewardship Act represents the conservation and stewardship part of the equations. Our goal here has been to closely follow the council's suggestions, and I greatly appreciate the efforts and energies of the many stakeholders who have helped move this initiative forward. This Stewardship Act is designed to help the States and private owners to move forward on many initiatives designed to protect and enhance the forest health, forest economies, and community development. The other part of the equation has been put forward in a bill sponsored by Senator Gregg. These measures would implement the many Federal tax policy changes recommended by the council. My desire would be to merge the two bills, as one complements the other. As I have said, there is broad agreement that it is increasingly difficult to make a living as a forester, and the tax changes contained in the Gregg bill would be of great benefit to Vermont forestry professionals. While it is not practical or possible to move the Gregg bill in concern with the Stewardship bill at this time, I think it is something toward which we should work, and I know several of my colleagues share this view. Madam President, this bill is an important step for the Northern Forest. As our progress here tonight is only possible because of the work already done by the Lands Council and all those involved in developing the consensus recommendations, I ask unanimous consent that the mission statement of the Northern Forest Lands Council be printed in the Record. This statement reflects the guiding principles of the council, and serves as our benchmark, as well.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I introduce the Work Incentive and Self-Sufficiency Act of 1996. I believe that few people are returning to work after becoming eligible for Social Security disability income [SSDI] not because they can no longer find gainful employment, but because of a greater systemic problem we face as a nation. What I am referring to is this country's current schizophrenic national disability policy. The laudable policy we set forth in the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 [ADA] which requires that resources be provided to promote functioning and work for people with disabilities, as well as, income support for those who cannot work or whose ability to work is very limited, are not well integrated into our current SSDI and SSI programs. This is a very complex problem that we must deal with if we ever expect to get our Federal deficit under control. I remember when we reported the ADA out of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, the committee made explicit that the goals of this law were to provide people with disabilities with: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self- sufficiency. Disability is not just a characteristic of individuals, but is a description of how well someone is able to fit into our society which includes his or her capacity to work. To provide for a clear and consistent national disability policy we must make sure that the incentives, and goals of our public programs, SSDI, SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid work in conjunction with the private sector. Many disabled individuals would like to return to work, but they are heavily penalized for there efforts to do so. For example, some courts have determined that if a person qualifies for SSDI, but then wants to try to go back to work and can't find a job, they have no cause of action under the ADA. I believe that the greatest disincentive for disabled individuals to return to work is the fear of losing their health care coverage. These individuals literally may not survive without health care coverage. Their condition often requires immediate utilization of health services and they cannot go, for, even for a short period of time, without the security of knowing they have guaranteed health coverage. It is understandable that they would prefer not to work if it will jeopardize this lifeline. Also in the labor market, despite the ADA, there is a disincentive to hire or maintain the disabled employee. The disabled employee will likely have a chronic high cost illness and if the employer offered a health plan they would be covered under this plan. It is important to keep in mind that all employer group health plans, both insured and self-insured, are covered under ERISA. Under ERISA, the employer currently has substantial flexibility in not only the benefits it chooses to cover, but also the types of plan design features it uses. Some employers have used plan design features which will carve out any high cost individual from coverage under the employee benefit health plan. With no where else to turn, disabled individuals once again become dependent upon public sector health care plans. This cost-shift from the employer health plans to the public health plans was the main argument I made during debate on the Health Insurance Reform Act when I brought my amendment on the lifetime caps to the floor. Employers, by limiting the maximum benefits they will pay for employees in a lifetime, actually set the point where their costs will end and Government expenditures begin. In the private market, health plans usually decide how much risk they will assume and then they reinsure the rest. In this case, the private market uses the Government-run health plans as the reinsurer of last resort. According to previous testimony by the General Accounting Office [GAO] no more than 1 of every 1,000 SSI and DI leave the rolls for work as a result of the Social Security Administration's assistance. These programs need to place a greater focus on the rule the employer can play in getting people rehabilitated and back to work. Once an individual becomes disabled the link with their current employer is disrupted and often terminated. If there were incentives, particularly early in the process, for the employer to remain involved the chances of returning to work would go up markedly. The employer could focus on accommodating a valuable employee rather than on replacing him. Employers could assist their workers in getting assessed for rehabilitation services immediately instead of waiting for the SSI or SSDI programs to first complete the application process and then making a referral for such services. If the employer were to keep in closer contact it would have better opportunity to prepare for any unique assistance the individual might ultimately need like a personal assistant or other assistance technology. The Work Incentive and Self-Sufficiency Act of 1996, is designed to address two significant problems in the Social Security Disability Income [SSDI] Program: If individuals with significant disabilities cannot keep their health coverage when they return to work, and if that work does not leave them financially better off, they cannot afford to go back and work, and leave the cash assistance they receive under SSDI or SSI. It is not only the cash assistance they receive from benefits that is critical, it is the health coverage they obtain through becoming Medicare eligible. Let us look at the numbers. The average monthly SSDI check is $630; some who were in the work force longer at higher earnings receive more while many others receive less. At the current minimum wage of $4.25 per hour, a person working full time--176 hours per month, or 8 hours per day for a standard 22 days--will earn $748. This is not much money, but if you assume a slightly better than minimum wage or some overtime at 1.5 times regular wages, then take home pay from work replaces the cash assistance that is lost. However, that cash assistance brings with it several noncash supports. The most well-known of these is health coverage, which comes through Medicare for SSDI beneficiaries and through Medicaid for SSI recipients. Other noncash supports include long-term supports under Medicaid, vocational rehab, or other programs, food stamps, rental assistance, home heating assistance, and a variety of discounts and reduced fares on public services, among other supports. The cost of replacing these noncash benefits for individuals with significant disabilities is often double or even triple the value of the cash assistance that is lost. The major assumptions are that individuals with significant disabilities can qualify for health coverage, much less afford to pay for it themselves, and private providers for long term supports can be located and afforded. The reality is that individuals with disabilities are often not able to locate health coverage that meets their needs, or if they can find coverage, it comes with either high deductibles and premiums, services exclusions, preexisting conditions limits, and/or yearly or lifetime caps on benefits. The same is true for the long term supports required by some individuals with significant disabilities such as quadriplegia or cerebral palsy. Many individuals with disabilities can work if they have the assistance of another person to perform activities of daily living that are required to prepare for work such as bathing, dressing, eating, transferring from bed to chair or using the bathroom. The difficulty is not with necessarily with working, but with locating and paying the support workers needed to prepare for and to perform work. Currently, when an SSDI beneficiary earns $500 monthly, that person demonstrates the capacity to work at the substantial gainful activity [SGA] level. If this work is sustained for 9 consecutive months, the individual no longer meets the first criteria for work disability eligibility: the incapacity to perform substantial gainful work in the national economy. Thus, proceedings are begun to end cash assistance. But, since take home pay equals or exceeds cash assistance, there is no problem. Or is there? One month individuals with significant disabilities are earning $748 from wages, less taxes, $630 from cash assistance, and receiving noncash benefits ranging in value from $1,200 to $1,800. The next month these individuals with significant disabilities are earning $748 from wages, less taxes, and from this amount now are expected to purchase up to $1,800 in medical coverage, long term supports, food, rent, and other necessities. It does not require sophisticated cost/ benefit calculations here to draw the conclusion that individuals with significant disabilities are being punished if they attempt to work. There are some basic solutions to this problem. First, continue health coverage for those who are on SSDI after they return to work. Second, make work pay by allowing low income former SSDI beneficiaries to receive benefits that gradually reduce as their take home pay increases. The Work Incentive and Self-Sufficiency Act of 1996 is designed to implement both of these solutions. First, it allows SSDI beneficiaries to keep their Medicare coverage if they return to work. If they take a job that does not offer health coverage, Medicare remains their primary insurance. If they find a position that does offer health insurance, they have the option to purchase Medicare coverage to use as supplementary coverage. Working beneficiaries would purchase this coverage on their own through premiums that rise on a sliding scale. Second, it allows SSDI beneficiaries to keep part of their cash assistance after they return to work. Rather than losing the entire amount once they earn $500 a month, they would lose $1 of cash benefits for every $2 in wages they earn that is above $500 a month. This is similar to, but not the same as, the rule that allows individuals over 65 who are retired on Social Security to earn wages and continue to receive retirement income and Medicare. Third, it allows some individuals to apply only for Medicare coverage but not cash assistance. This would offer some workers who acquire a disability during their working years the option to purchase Medicare coverage and continue working. The Medicare coverage could be either their primary or supplemental coverage. At this point some will ask, ``Won't that increase already rising costs of benefits?'' Actually, no. Extending health coverage to those who return to work will not increase costs essentially because so few people are leaving the disability program for work. In fact, enabling people who were former beneficiaries or recipients to keep this health coverage would lead to some of them eventually being covered by private health insurance, thus reducing costs. It will also lead to a reduction in the amount of SSDI and SSI cash assistance paid as reentering workers replace benefits with wages, and pay taxes on those wages. Employers would not be required to purchase any additional insurance or to report any additional information to the Government. Individuals with disabilities would assume the responsibility to exercise the option to purchase Medicare and pay the Medicare premiums. Considering the very important role employers have in assuring our Nation's policy goal to self- sufficiency for individuals with disabilities I am especially pleased to have a letter from Michael R. Losey, president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management [SHRM]. SHRM is and I quote, ``fascinated by your proposal that would provide employment incentives to individuals with disabilities * * * SHRM looks forward to working with you and your staff to promote employment and reemployment incentives for those with disabilities.'' I would also like to thank both Fred Grandy, president and CEO of Goodwill Industries International, Inc., and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Task Force on Social Security, especially the cochairs, Tony Young, Marty Ford and Rhonda Schulzinger, for their letters of support for this bill. Mr. President, I asked unanimous consent that these three letters be inserted into the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight a provision in the agriculture appropriations bill that I think makes an important improvement to the WIC Program. I want to highlight the importance of this provision with hope that we can maintain it in the conference committee. The WIC infant formula cost containment program saves more than $1 billion a year in Federal funds and allows over 1.6 million more women, infants, and children to be served through WIC each month than would otherwise be the case. Nearly one of every four WIC participants is served with cost containment savings and would have to be removed from the program if cost containment collapsed. There is a danger now developing that threatens to undermine WIC cost containment and we need Federal action to counteract this development. In the past, States typically awarded their WIC contract to the company whose net wholesale price is the lowest. The net wholesale price represents the wholesale price of the product minus the rebate per can the manufacturer will pay the State WIC program. Recently, though, States have begun to award their WIC contracts to the company that offered the highest rebate per can, regardless of the company's wholesale price. A provision contained in this bill requires that States award contracts on the basis of the lowest net wholesale price-- as most States currently do--rather than on the basis of the biggest rebate. An exception would exist if the State has reliable data showing that it makes no difference in the cost outcome whether the contract is awarded on the basis of rebate or net wholesale price. Let me take a few moments to describe to my colleagues the flaws of the rebate methodology. This methodology is faulty for two reasons: First, it discriminates against a company that charges low wholesale prices. An industry heavyweight can sell the product for, say $2.50 per can and then give the State a rebate of $2.00 per can of formula. Under that scenario, the net wholesale price to the program is 50 cents per can of infant formula. A smaller company, on the other hand, may not be able to demand as high a retail price and they may charge only $1.95 per can of formula. At a $1.95 retail, the smaller company can't begin to compete on the basis of rebate, they'd be losing money on every can of formula. What the company could do is offer a rebate of $1.50, setting the net wholesale price at 45 cents per can. Ultimately the smaller company will save the WIC Program a lot of money. But they will never have the opportunity to do so if the only thing the State looks to is the rebate amount. The second problem with this contract methodology is apparent in the scenario I've just described. Not only does the highest rebate methodology discriminate against small companies, it could cost the WIC Program up to $1 billion a year. Approaching WIC infant formula contracts on the basis of who offers the highest rebate just doesn't make sense. We know from experience that a truly competitive bidding process will save the WIC program more than $1 billion a year. I'll close by thanking Senator Cochran and Senator Hatfield for including this cost containment measure in the Agriculture Appropriations bill we're now discussing, and I urge my colleagues serving on the conference committee to support this provision in the conference bill. Amendments Nos. 4972 through 4974, En Bloc

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I introduce the Work Incentive and Self-Sufficiency Act of 1996. I believe that few people are returning to work after becoming eligible for Social Security disability income [SSDI] not because they can no longer find gainful employment, but because of a greater systemic problem we face as a nation. What I am referring to is this country's current schizophrenic national disability policy. The laudable policy we set forth in the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 [ADA] which requires that resources be provided to promote functioning and work for people with disabilities, as well as, income support for those who cannot work or whose ability to work is very limited, are not well integrated into our current SSDI and SSI programs. This is a very complex problem that we must deal with if we ever expect to get our Federal deficit under control. I remember when we reported the ADA out of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, the committee made explicit that the goals of this law were to provide people with disabilities with: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self- sufficiency. Disability is not just a characteristic of individuals, but is a description of how well someone is able to fit into our society which includes his or her capacity to work. To provide for a clear and consistent national disability policy we must make sure that the incentives, and goals of our public programs, SSDI, SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid work in conjunction with the private sector. Many disabled individuals would like to return to work, but they are heavily penalized for there efforts to do so. For example, some courts have determined that if a person qualifies for SSDI, but then wants to try to go back to work and can't find a job, they have no cause of action under the ADA. I believe that the greatest disincentive for disabled individuals to return to work is the fear of losing their health care coverage. These individuals literally may not survive without health care coverage. Their condition often requires immediate utilization of health services and they cannot go, for, even for a short period of time, without the security of knowing they have guaranteed health coverage. It is understandable that they would prefer not to work if it will jeopardize this lifeline. Also in the labor market, despite the ADA, there is a disincentive to hire or maintain the disabled employee. The disabled employee will likely have a chronic high cost illness and if the employer offered a health plan they would be covered under this plan. It is important to keep in mind that all employer group health plans, both insured and self-insured, are covered under ERISA. Under ERISA, the employer currently has substantial flexibility in not only the benefits it chooses to cover, but also the types of plan design features it uses. Some employers have used plan design features which will carve out any high cost individual from coverage under the employee benefit health plan. With no where else to turn, disabled individuals once again become dependent upon public sector health care plans. This cost-shift from the employer health plans to the public health plans was the main argument I made during debate on the Health Insurance Reform Act when I brought my amendment on the lifetime caps to the floor. Employers, by limiting the maximum benefits they will pay for employees in a lifetime, actually set the point where their costs will end and Government expenditures begin. In the private market, health plans usually decide how much risk they will assume and then they reinsure the rest. In this case, the private market uses the Government-run health plans as the reinsurer of last resort. According to previous testimony by the General Accounting Office [GAO] no more than 1 of every 1,000 SSI and DI leave the rolls for work as a result of the Social Security Administration's assistance. These programs need to place a greater focus on the rule the employer can play in getting people rehabilitated and back to work. Once an individual becomes disabled the link with their current employer is disrupted and often terminated. If there were incentives, particularly early in the process, for the employer to remain involved the chances of returning to work would go up markedly. The employer could focus on accommodating a valuable employee rather than on replacing him. Employers could assist their workers in getting assessed for rehabilitation services immediately instead of waiting for the SSI or SSDI programs to first complete the application process and then making a referral for such services. If the employer were to keep in closer contact it would have better opportunity to prepare for any unique assistance the individual might ultimately need like a personal assistant or other assistance technology. The Work Incentive and Self-Sufficiency Act of 1996, is designed to address two significant problems in the Social Security Disability Income [SSDI] Program: If individuals with significant disabilities cannot keep their health coverage when they return to work, and if that work does not leave them financially better off, they cannot afford to go back and work, and leave the cash assistance they receive under SSDI or SSI. It is not only the cash assistance they receive from benefits that is critical, it is the health coverage they obtain through becoming Medicare eligible. Let us look at the numbers. The average monthly SSDI check is $630; some who were in the work force longer at higher earnings receive more while many others receive less. At the current minimum wage of $4.25 per hour, a person working full time--176 hours per month, or 8 hours per day for a standard 22 days--will earn $748. This is not much money, but if you assume a slightly better than minimum wage or some overtime at 1.5 times regular wages, then take home pay from work replaces the cash assistance that is lost. However, that cash assistance brings with it several noncash supports. The most well-known of these is health coverage, which comes through Medicare for SSDI beneficiaries and through Medicaid for SSI recipients. Other noncash supports include long-term supports under Medicaid, vocational rehab, or other programs, food stamps, rental assistance, home heating assistance, and a variety of discounts and reduced fares on public services, among other supports. The cost of replacing these noncash benefits for individuals with significant disabilities is often double or even triple the value of the cash assistance that is lost. The major assumptions are that individuals with significant disabilities can qualify for health coverage, much less afford to pay for it themselves, and private providers for long term supports can be located and afforded. The reality is that individuals with disabilities are often not able to locate health coverage that meets their needs, or if they can find coverage, it comes with either high deductibles and premiums, services exclusions, preexisting conditions limits, and/or yearly or lifetime caps on benefits. The same is true for the long term supports required by some individuals with significant disabilities such as quadriplegia or cerebral palsy. Many individuals with disabilities can work if they have the assistance of another person to perform activities of daily living that are required to prepare for work such as bathing, dressing, eating, transferring from bed to chair or using the bathroom. The difficulty is not with necessarily with working, but with locating and paying the support workers needed to prepare for and to perform work. Currently, when an SSDI beneficiary earns $500 monthly, that person demonstrates the capacity to work at the substantial gainful activity [SGA] level. If this work is sustained for 9 consecutive months, the individual no longer meets the first criteria for work disability eligibility: the incapacity to perform substantial gainful work in the national economy. Thus, proceedings are begun to end cash assistance. But, since take home pay equals or exceeds cash assistance, there is no problem. Or is there? One month individuals with significant disabilities are earning $748 from wages, less taxes, $630 from cash assistance, and receiving noncash benefits ranging in value from $1,200 to $1,800. The next month these individuals with significant disabilities are earning $748 from wages, less taxes, and from this amount now are expected to purchase up to $1,800 in medical coverage, long term supports, food, rent, and other necessities. It does not require sophisticated cost/ benefit calculations here to draw the conclusion that individuals with significant disabilities are being punished if they attempt to work. There are some basic solutions to this problem. First, continue health coverage for those who are on SSDI after they return to work. Second, make work pay by allowing low income former SSDI beneficiaries to receive benefits that gradually reduce as their take home pay increases. The Work Incentive and Self-Sufficiency Act of 1996 is designed to implement both of these solutions. First, it allows SSDI beneficiaries to keep their Medicare coverage if they return to work. If they take a job that does not offer health coverage, Medicare remains their primary insurance. If they find a position that does offer health insurance, they have the option to purchase Medicare coverage to use as supplementary coverage. Working beneficiaries would purchase this coverage on their own through premiums that rise on a sliding scale. Second, it allows SSDI beneficiaries to keep part of their cash assistance after they return to work. Rather than losing the entire amount once they earn $500 a month, they would lose $1 of cash benefits for every $2 in wages they earn that is above $500 a month. This is similar to, but not the same as, the rule that allows individuals over 65 who are retired on Social Security to earn wages and continue to receive retirement income and Medicare. Third, it allows some individuals to apply only for Medicare coverage but not cash assistance. This would offer some workers who acquire a disability during their working years the option to purchase Medicare coverage and continue working. The Medicare coverage could be either their primary or supplemental coverage. At this point some will ask, ``Won't that increase already rising costs of benefits?'' Actually, no. Extending health coverage to those who return to work will not increase costs essentially because so few people are leaving the disability program for work. In fact, enabling people who were former beneficiaries or recipients to keep this health coverage would lead to some of them eventually being covered by private health insurance, thus reducing costs. It will also lead to a reduction in the amount of SSDI and SSI cash assistance paid as reentering workers replace benefits with wages, and pay taxes on those wages. Employers would not be required to purchase any additional insurance or to report any additional information to the Government. Individuals with disabilities would assume the responsibility to exercise the option to purchase Medicare and pay the Medicare premiums. Considering the very important role employers have in assuring our Nation's policy goal to self- sufficiency for individuals with disabilities I am especially pleased to have a letter from Michael R. Losey, president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management [SHRM]. SHRM is and I quote, ``fascinated by your proposal that would provide employment incentives to individuals with disabilities * * * SHRM looks forward to working with you and your staff to promote employment and reemployment incentives for those with disabilities.'' I would also like to thank both Fred Grandy, president and CEO of Goodwill Industries International, Inc., and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Task Force on Social Security, especially the cochairs, Tony Young, Marty Ford and Rhonda Schulzinger, for their letters of support for this bill. Mr. President, I asked unanimous consent that these three letters be inserted into the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join Senator Conrad, myself, and our cosponsors in supporting the amendment to remove the optional block grant from the welfare bill. I have three major objections to block granting the Food Stamp Program. First, I am very concerned about the opportunity for fraud if we turn the Food Stamp Program over to the States. Second, I am fearful that a food stamp block grant could put our most vulnerable populations at risk. Finally, I believe the bill as crafted proposes a solid program that will afford the States a great deal of flexibility without irretrievably compromising our national nutritional safety net. I think the program proposed in the bill should be given an opportunity to prove itself. Under current food stamp law, the USDA operates a sophisticated computer system that identifies suspicious food stamp redemption patterns. Federal undercover agents visit the suspicious stores and gather evidence of illegal activity. If food stamps are converted to a block grant, much of this responsibility will shift to the States. Few States will be able to match the antifraud capabilities and resources of this Federal operation. Although I understand the States' desire for greater flexibility, we know that at this time only a handful have developed an electronic system that could provide the assurances of fraud prevention that we have at the Federal level. In this time of quickly diminishing Federal resources, I am reluctant to sacrifice the efficiencies and success of the program that the Department of Agriculture has developed. Next, let me share my concern that the optional food stamp block grant would end the assurance of a nutritional safety net under the Nation's poor--particularly its children. Poor families and elderly individuals would be left at serious risk during economic downturns in States opting for the block grant. The block grant fails to provide any adjustment during a recession for increases in unemployment and poverty. States also would receive no additional funds in the event that food prices rise unexpectedly. States would be forced to curtail eligibility and benefits during these times. Unemployed workers who need food stamps temporarily could end up on a waiting list--depriving their families of critical food assistance. After unemployment compensation, the Food Stamp Program is the Nation's principle countercyclical tool to respond to recessions. Block granting the Food Stamp Program puts children at risk. Preserving national standards for food stamps takes on even greater importance if the AFDC Program is converted to a block grant since no poor child is assured of receiving cash assistance under an AFDC block grant. Maintaining the National Food Stamp Program at least guarantees that a food assistance safety net of last resort is in place for poor children. Given this very great risk, I frankly am not sure why a State would choose a block grant, nonetheless it is possible a State would, and I fear its poorest citizens could end up suffering the consequences. Finally, I believe there is no reason for a State to choose a block grant--the welfare bill as drafted gives the States unprecedented flexibility to run their own food stamp programs without a block grant. Under this reform bill: States get flexibility to set their own food stamp benefit rules for families that receive AFDC. If they choose, States could drop many of the rules that now apply to families, and then substitute their own rules--without securing a waiver. States also may integrate food stamp and cash assistance benefit eligibility as they see fit. States have asked for a long time for this flexibility, and the bill as drafted gives it to them. States can convert food stamp benefits to wage subsidies provided to employers. In other words, States may require food stamp recipients in wage subsidy projects to work for wages rather than food stamps. Again, this is something many States have asked for, and the bill as drafted gives it to them. States have the flexibility to disqualify custodial parents who do not cooperate with efforts to establish paternity or child support orders. States may also disqualify absent parents who fail to make their child support payments. States are freed from federally imposed administrative requirements. The bill lifts an array of Federal requirements regarding food stamp application forms, the application process, and how States should coordinate with other assistance programs would be removed. States can make their own decisions on how to administer their food stamp programs. This is flexibility the States asked for, and the bill gives it to them. I have listed four ways that this bill provides much greater flexibility to the States than they have ever had in the Food Stamp Program--and there are many more provisions in the bill that give the States the flexibility they have asked for with regard to the Food Stamp Program. For the reasons described above, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to remove the optional block grant from the bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to correct what I think is a serious problem with this bill. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment to remove from the welfare section of this bill those provisions that unfairly burden poor families who rely on both food stamps and Federal energy assistance. Not only does the bill change a long-standing bipartisan policy, it does so without bringing any savings to the bill. As it's currently drafted, S. 1956 will cut the food stamp benefits of poor families and elderly people who receive Federal low-income energy assistance. The bill achieves this end by counting LIHEAP benefits as though they were income available to families to purchase food. The result is that any time a poor family with children or an elderly person receives Federal help to pay a fuel bill, they'll get less in food stamp benefits that month. The good news is this is a very easy provision to fix. Linking LIHEAP benefits to food stamp eligibility doesn't add any savings to the bill because under new scoring policies, CBO doesn't score any savings to this provision. We can remove this harsh provision from the bill without reducing our welfare savings. I'd like to take a few minutes now to remind my colleagues of the importance of both the Food Stamp Program and the energy assistance program to our most vulnerable populations. Who is receiving food stamps? Households with children--80 percent of the food stamp population. Elderly people--another 7 percent. People living at half the poverty level--more than half of all food stamp benefits go to people living at half the poverty level. That's who's getting food stamps--families with children, the elderly, and extremely poor people, Food stamps benefit our most vulnerable populations. We can't lost sight of that fact. LIHEAP, too, serves the poorest of the poor: Households with incomes less than $8,000--two-thirds of LIHEAP funds goes to these households. Half of the households receiving LIHEAP have incomes below $6,000. One-third of LIHEAP households have elderly people living in them. One-third of LIHEAP households have disabled people living there. LIHEAP is the program that prevents many disadvantaged households from having to choose between putting food on the table or heating or cooling their homes. What we've done in the bill as drafted is force people to make that choice again. If they need help heating or cooling their homes, there will be less food stamp benefits available to them. In households with incomes of less than $8,000, we shouldn't be forcing people to make that choice. Food and shelter are very basic human needs. On $8,000 a year, there can be no doubt that the entire household income must be devoted to meeting the needs of basic human existence: clothing, medical care, and maybe transportation. In my mind, it's simply bad policy to force those basic needs to compete with each other. This welfare reform package is about helping people to get back on their feet: helping them to move beyond poverty and dependence into productive and contributing citizenship. To the extent that we're talking about populations we don't expect to hold down jobs: the severely disabled, the elderly, and children--this policy is even more problematic. Either way, we need to make sure that people have the fuel they need to heat their homes, or cool them if that's necessary. We need to make sure people have food for their children and for themselves. It's not a one or the other proposition--people need both. Federal law has recognized this fact since the mid-1980's, and there's no reason to change the policy now. For many years, it has been our policy to not count aid provided under LIHEAP assistance as income. Members of both parties have recognized in the past that reducing the food stamps of LIHEAP recipients would be counterproductive. Do we really want a policy that says ``whenever LIHEAP helps a poor family or elderly person pay high utility bills, they well have their food stamps cut?'' I don't believe we're really helping if we implement this policy. People will still face major difficulty in paying basic bills and securing adequate food at the same time. According to CBO estimates, the welfare bill already cuts the Food Stamp Program by $28 billion over the next 6 years. The food stamp cuts in this bill are $4 billion deeper than the cuts in those years under last year's Senate welfare bill. The cuts in the benefits of the households receiving energy assistance would be on top of the food stamp benefit reductions already in the bill. Since the provision cutting the food stamps of poor households that receive LIHEAP doesn't score any savings, we should remove this link from the bill and retain current law. Again, I urge my colleagues to join me and my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Chafee, Cohen, Leahy, Lieberman, Simon, Kennedy, Kohl, and Wellstone in supporting this amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to bring to your attention two items in this bill that relate to the Reconnaissance and Interdiction Detachment, RAID, funding that fall within the budget of the Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities of the Department of Defense, DOD. Vermont, as a border State, is in a very strategic position in the country's efforts to combat drugs. Since 1991 the Vermont State Police have been successfully working with the Army National Guard for the interdiction and eradication during the comparatively short but very productive marijuana growing season. The efforts of the Vermont Army National Guard have contributed to the eradication of approximately 70- 80 percent of all confiscated marijuana reported by the Vermont State Police. Thanks to the cooperation of my colleague from Alaska, this bill will help Vermont's law enforcement community continue its successful counterdrug and interdiction efforts. I appreciate the Senator's concurrence with me and other Senators who believe the National Guard has made important and valuable contributions to the Nation's counterdrug efforts. Mr. President, this issue has bipartisan support. Both sides recognize the National Guard's efforts to interdict and eradicate illegal drugs deserve sufficient funding and have wisely indicated this in their bill. Language in the committee report states that the DOD should ensure the RAID program is fully funded and supported. More specific to Vermont's needs, the committee included my request for $500,000 to assist in the implementation of a more focused RAID program. These funds will directly benefit Vermont's RAID program by making available two OH-58 helicopters, as well as the necessary personnel and infra-red equipment to carry out the mission. I greatly appreciate the chairman's cooperation and accommodation of my request. I also understand his feeling that the allocation of these funds should be postponed until the present National Guard Review of the State Governors' programs is completed. As it appears the review is very close to completion, there should be little delay once the appropriations bill is enacted. Mr. President, I am pleased that my colleague from Alaska has joined me in a discussion of this important matter on the floor of the Senate, and I commend him for including these important items in the bill before us.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to bring to your attention an item in this bill which is listed under the heading of Industrial Preparedness, namely the Lithographic and Alternative Semiconductor Processing Techniques [LAST] Center. This Center will play a major role in the development of a critical technology for our national defense. As you know, our national defense is heavily dependent on the electronics industry, in which there are certain critical tools and technologies. Of these, lithography is pivotal to our Nation's continued success. This is the technology used to create the ever- shrinking patterns found on integrated circuit chips and is an area where we face fierce international competition. The United States must retain leadership in this dual-use technology area through the continued investments by government, industry, universities, and industrial associations. Since 1988, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA] has been working with the Naval Air Systems Command and the Naval Research Laboratory to develop alternative lithographic technologies. Proximity x-ray lithography is considered to be the primary backup to the optical lithography technologies currently used, and to have the most promise for manufacturing future generations of chips. Yet by fiscal year 1998, DARPA plans to curtail the bulk of its funding in proximity x-ray technology. This technology is at the delicate point where DARPA believes it is too mature to meet its development investment profile, yet the industrial infrastructure is not yet sufficient to sustain it. Therefore, DOD investment is needed to continue development of x-ray lithography and other mask technologies and to demonstrate how semiconductor processes can be used in leading edge military applications. This work more clearly fits the needs of the services than the mission of DARPA. The bill the Senate is considering today begins a smooth transition of the results of DARPA's Advanced Lithography Program in proximity x- ray lithography to the Navy in fiscal year 1997. It establishes a Manufacturing Technology Program Center of Excellence, which would be based at the IBM research facility in Essex Junction, VT. The bill provides for the extension of efforts begun in the DARPA Advanced Lithography Program through transition to the Lithographic and Alternative Semiconductor Processing Techniques [LAST] Center and funds the Center at $15 million in fiscal year 1997, from the manufacturing technology budget, PE78011N. It increases the request in that line by $15 million. This increase is in addition to any other planned increases. The Naval Air Systems Command should manage this Center since it currently is the agent for most of the DARPA contracts in this technology area. As the LAST Center's programs are part of a larger ongoing government, university, industry effort to nurture advanced lithography, both the Center's program and DARPA's X- ray Proximity Printing Program must be viewed as an ongoing effort. A coordinating effort for the LAST Program should be established and the Navy should chair a coordinating panel including representatives of DARPA and the three services, as appropriate. This is extremely important in light of recent developments in Asia, in particular, NTT's announcement of .07 micron device demonstrations using proximity x-ray technology and Mitsubishi's recent announcement that it is proceeding with a $1 billion semiconductor fabrication facility built around synchrotron x-ray lithography technology. These, along with the fabrication of the Pohang beam line for x-ray lithography in Korea, underscore the worldwide investment being made in this critical technology. The LAST Center will allow DOD to begin the insertion of x-ray technology and alternative semiconductor processing techniques into military applications. This Center will be of high value to military systems. I believe the Secretary of the Navy should support its continuation for a period of 5 years beginning in the Navy's fiscal year 1998 budget request. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from Alaska for joining me in a discussion of this important matter on the floor of the Senate, and I commend him for including this important item in the bill before us.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I introduce the ``Commission on Retirement Income Policy Act of 1996'' with my colleagues Bill Bradley, Bill Cohen, Bob Kerrey, Nancy Kassebaum, Jeff Bingaman, John Chafee, and Ron Wyden. As you can see, this is a bi-partisan effort by many of the members of the Senate/House Ad Hoc Steering Committee on Retirement Income Security. This bill is a companion to a bill introduced in the House on March 13, 1996, by Nancy Johnson and Earl Pomeroy HR 3077. The objective of the Steering Committee, which is co-chaired by Senator Bradley, Representative Nancy Johnson and Earl Pomeroy, in its first year of operation has been to engage Members of Congress and experts in the private sector in a national dialog concerning this country's retirement income policies. Over the past 9 months, the Steering Committee has hosted a series of luncheons for members and staff to discuss retirement savings issues. During that time, we heard from a variety of experts who represent a cross-section of views and interest in the retirement policy field. Although, generally I am not a great fan of Commissions, I believe after this past year of informal meetings with Members and private sector experts that it is imperative that we as a Nation go back to basics regarding all of the components that make up retirement income. I am referring to the three-legged-stool approach which was so nicely illustrated at our first luncheon on November 9, 1995, by Deborah Briceland-Betts, Executive Director, Older Women's League. The three- legged-stool which represents our national retirement savings is collapsing. The problem is that not only is one leg shaky instead all three legs, employer pension benefit plans, Social Security and individual savings, are wobbly. The private pension system simply does not cover a majority of workers. Those employees fortunate enough to have coverage will find their pension plans will not provide them with sufficient retirement income to meet their expected needs. The Social Security program which is now over 60 years old, is heading for a collapse under the weight of the baby boom generation. Personal savings have been in a downward spiral for years, Americans have become used to personal deficit spending. Financial planners, actuaries, pension consultants, and economists have begun to warn the public and policy makers that, if current trends continue, the retirement income of future retirees will fall far short of their anticipated needs. Yet, more pressing issues, such as health care costs and coverage, cuts in government spending, and other domestic concerns, have made if difficult for the message to get through to the American public. By the time individuals start to plan for retirement income needs they often become overwhelmed. Faced with falling wages and competing savings demands for college for the kids or providing for long-term health care needs for aging parents, many baby boomer sense they are in a deep financial hole from the start. If we continue to ignore this looming retirement crisis and wait until the baby boomers begin to retire, it will be too late. Future retirees must save throughout their earnings lifetimes and we as a society must find the way to shore up the Social Security and private pension systems by determining how the two systems can work as a team to meet this Nation's goal of adequate retirement income for all Americans. I would like to take a few minutes to outline the bill. First, the Commission will review trends in retirement savings in the United States, and will evaluate existing federal incentives and programs designed to encourage and protect such savings. In developing recommendations, the bill requires the Commission to consider the amounts of retirement income that future retirees will need (including amounts needed to pay for medical and long-term care), the various sources of retirement income which are available to individuals, the needs of retirement plan sponsors for simplicity and reasonable cost, and the recent shift away from defined benefit plans toward defined contribution plans. The Commission will gather information through a series of public hearings and through receipt of testimony and evidence from a wide variety of witnesses. This Commission must report to Congress and the President within 1 year after being established. It will recommend concrete steps to ensure that future retirees have adequate retirement income. While the Commission will consider savings generally, it will focus on private savings vehicles and will not make recommendations regarding an overhaul of the Social Security Program, rather it will look to ways the private and public programs can work together. The Commission's recommendations will address the role that traditional pension plan coverage should play in reaching retirement income goals, as well as the role to be played by other retirement savings tools such as 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). The bill requires that any recommendations for new federal incentives or programs to encourage retirement savings also identify the funds necessary to finance these initiatives. Finally, the only change that we have made from the House bill is the compliment of the Commission. Our Senate version has put greater emphasis on having private sector representation. The Commission will have 16 members, four appointed by the President, of which at least two must be from private life. Three members each, appointed by both the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, of which at least two must be from private life. Three members each, appointed by both the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Minority Leader the House of Representatives, of which at least two must be from private life. Mr. President in closing, I along with Senator Bradley, would also like to acknowledge with special gratitude, the American Society of Pension Actuaries for their letter of endorsement, which we would like inserted in the Record, for this bill we are introducing today in the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I introduce the ``Commission on Retirement Income Policy Act of 1996'' with my colleagues Bill Bradley, Bill Cohen, Bob Kerrey, Nancy Kassebaum, Jeff Bingaman, John Chafee, and Ron Wyden. As you can see, this is a bi-partisan effort by many of the members of the Senate/House Ad Hoc Steering Committee on Retirement Income Security. This bill is a companion to a bill introduced in the House on March 13, 1996, by Nancy Johnson and Earl Pomeroy HR 3077. The objective of the Steering Committee, which is co-chaired by Senator Bradley, Representative Nancy Johnson and Earl Pomeroy, in its first year of operation has been to engage Members of Congress and experts in the private sector in a national dialog concerning this country's retirement income policies. Over the past 9 months, the Steering Committee has hosted a series of luncheons for members and staff to discuss retirement savings issues. During that time, we heard from a variety of experts who represent a cross-section of views and interest in the retirement policy field. Although, generally I am not a great fan of Commissions, I believe after this past year of informal meetings with Members and private sector experts that it is imperative that we as a Nation go back to basics regarding all of the components that make up retirement income. I am referring to the three-legged-stool approach which was so nicely illustrated at our first luncheon on November 9, 1995, by Deborah Briceland-Betts, Executive Director, Older Women's League. The three- legged-stool which represents our national retirement savings is collapsing. The problem is that not only is one leg shaky instead all three legs, employer pension benefit plans, Social Security and individual savings, are wobbly. The private pension system simply does not cover a majority of workers. Those employees fortunate enough to have coverage will find their pension plans will not provide them with sufficient retirement income to meet their expected needs. The Social Security program which is now over 60 years old, is heading for a collapse under the weight of the baby boom generation. Personal savings have been in a downward spiral for years, Americans have become used to personal deficit spending. Financial planners, actuaries, pension consultants, and economists have begun to warn the public and policy makers that, if current trends continue, the retirement income of future retirees will fall far short of their anticipated needs. Yet, more pressing issues, such as health care costs and coverage, cuts in government spending, and other domestic concerns, have made if difficult for the message to get through to the American public. By the time individuals start to plan for retirement income needs they often become overwhelmed. Faced with falling wages and competing savings demands for college for the kids or providing for long-term health care needs for aging parents, many baby boomer sense they are in a deep financial hole from the start. If we continue to ignore this looming retirement crisis and wait until the baby boomers begin to retire, it will be too late. Future retirees must save throughout their earnings lifetimes and we as a society must find the way to shore up the Social Security and private pension systems by determining how the two systems can work as a team to meet this Nation's goal of adequate retirement income for all Americans. I would like to take a few minutes to outline the bill. First, the Commission will review trends in retirement savings in the United States, and will evaluate existing federal incentives and programs designed to encourage and protect such savings. In developing recommendations, the bill requires the Commission to consider the amounts of retirement income that future retirees will need (including amounts needed to pay for medical and long-term care), the various sources of retirement income which are available to individuals, the needs of retirement plan sponsors for simplicity and reasonable cost, and the recent shift away from defined benefit plans toward defined contribution plans. The Commission will gather information through a series of public hearings and through receipt of testimony and evidence from a wide variety of witnesses. This Commission must report to Congress and the President within 1 year after being established. It will recommend concrete steps to ensure that future retirees have adequate retirement income. While the Commission will consider savings generally, it will focus on private savings vehicles and will not make recommendations regarding an overhaul of the Social Security Program, rather it will look to ways the private and public programs can work together. The Commission's recommendations will address the role that traditional pension plan coverage should play in reaching retirement income goals, as well as the role to be played by other retirement savings tools such as 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). The bill requires that any recommendations for new federal incentives or programs to encourage retirement savings also identify the funds necessary to finance these initiatives. Finally, the only change that we have made from the House bill is the compliment of the Commission. Our Senate version has put greater emphasis on having private sector representation. The Commission will have 16 members, four appointed by the President, of which at least two must be from private life. Three members each, appointed by both the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, of which at least two must be from private life. Three members each, appointed by both the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Minority Leader the House of Representatives, of which at least two must be from private life. Mr. President in closing, I along with Senator Bradley, would also like to acknowledge with special gratitude, the American Society of Pension Actuaries for their letter of endorsement, which we would like inserted in the Record, for this bill we are introducing today in the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have come to speak on the TEAM Act. I do so because I feel very strongly that there is a misunderstanding as to what we are discussing, the importance of it to this country, and that if we sat back and took a look at where we are and what we are talking about and understood the ramifications, there would be unanimous support for the TEAM Act. I come to you with somewhat of a different perspective than some of my colleagues. I earlier today supported the minimum wage. I am not one who has anything but respect for the various positions of labor versus management. Sometimes I am with one; sometimes I am with the other. On this one, I am strongly in favor of doing what must be done to improve this Nation's productivity, and that is what we are talking about here--this Nation's productivity--for if there is no productivity, there is no profit. If there is no profit, then there is nothing for the workers and the management to split up for the owners and the stockholders. So I come here as an original cosponsor of the TEAM Act because I believe that cooperation between employers and employees is the wave of the future. Unfortunately, it has been the wave of the future for our competitors for some 40 years. We are behind. Why? The historical confrontation and conflict models of industrial relations will not serve us in this 21st century, the models that were created in the 1930's when we had industries taking advantage of workers, when it was necessary for the workers to join together to fight for higher wages and to fight for their share of productivity. We now have a realization that the processes we utilized in the 1930's are no longer relevant. That was learned by our competitors many years ago. I was a senior at Yale University back in the late 1950's, and at that time we took a look at what needed to be done to improve productivity and to improve how our Nation could meet the demands of the future. Many suggestions were made. I remember writing my senior thesis, and I understood what needed to be done, in my own mind, in order to improve the productivity of this Nation. At that time we were discussing innovative matters, such as workers and management getting together, learning how to split the profits through profit sharing, stock options, and all of these matters. It was a fascinating time for academia. As we studied and put together imaginative ideas on how to improve productivity in the Nation, there was just one problem. Nobody was listening, neither the management nor the workers, for they were all still in the 1930's mode, wondering what could be done as they fought each other to see who could get the advantage over the other. Who was listening? The Germans, the Japanese--the Asians, the Europeans. What happened? If you look back now, you see such an unbelievable contrast of what the goals were in manufacturing, and what the results were. Ours was, ``fight, fight, fight.'' And what happened? As we went through the years, the relationships between management and workers did not improve. In fact they got testier, they got worse. And in some cases, like the automobile industry, workers were in a situation where they got tremendous advantages for themselves, but all of a sudden they were fighting the Japanese and Germans, and those automobiles came in with much better quality. And what happened? We almost lost the automobile industry. Why? Because the Europeans and the Asians had understood, as we did not at that time, that if the workers and management could sit down with each other, could take a look at what their problems were that they had to face, how they could improve quality, how they could work in order to improve productivity, could improve the profit, then they could all sit down and have a better chance to make sure they were each taken care of. So, if you look back at what happened in this Nation, the relationship between laborers and management has not improved. In fact, it has even gotten worse in many cases: ``fight, fight, fight.'' What happened? If you take a look at the unions, our unions have gotten weaker. The union movement now is frustrated because it cannot organize the companies. On the other hand, in Germany and in Japan the opposite took place. They learned how to get together, concepts which are a little frightening to those who were worrying about communism in the 1950's. ``My God, you cannot let workers and management get together.'' But they learned to improve their productivity and the way they did things. When things were returned you went, not to the managers, you went to the production line and said, ``How come all these parts came out this way?'' And the workers sat down and said, ``If we improve this, we will have better quality and sell more.'' And then what happens? You then argue over how you split the increase in productivity. If you examine the unions in Europe, what happened to them is, using these concepts, they got stronger and stronger. And in Asia they got stronger and stronger. In fact, in Germany there are workers on the boards of directors. In Japan they had worked out work security agreements long before our workers did in this country. The main desire there is to keep people employed, even sometimes at the expense of stockholders; even, sometimes, at the expense of corporate profits. So there the unions, by working together with management toward a common goal, strengthened the union movement in those countries. In this country what happened? We were still fighting against each other and were not worried about productivity. So what has happened now? This kind of, fight, fight, fight, has resulted in weird decisions under the NLRB, saying you cannot even sit down and do the most menial things without going through the whole process of unionization. We have some 30,000 businesses now that can be intimidated into doing something because, if they sit down and try to work it out to improve productivity, they may have an action brought against them to stop them from working together, stop them from doing what is necessary to improve their business. They could get fined, they could receive an injunction to prevent what ought to be done so they can have more productivity, more profit to split among the stockholders and workers together. So why in the world would we now say it is a bad idea to do what our competitors across the world have been doing, putting us out of business, and we say we cannot sit down and work together without going through the whole unionization process? It may not be too late for us. But it is such a simplistic thought, that it is a good idea for us all to sit down and figure out how we can change the production line to improve the product, so we can sell more and then talk about an increase in wages, instead of saying no, you cannot do that because that may mean we are working too closely together. If we work too closely together, my gosh, that is not good. Why not? Well, I don't know, but it was not good in the 1930's so it is probably not good now. We are not in the 1930's. Relationships between employees and employers have changed dramatically in those areas where we figured out the best way to work is to work together. We have shining examples in this country, Motorola and others, who have learned how to compete, and to a certain extent the automobile industry, that has learned how to compete. All it means is to learn to work together. The TEAM Act means we can work together and improve everybody's lives. We can improve the safety, we can improve the productivity, and we can improve the profit. Why in the world would you be against that? Why? Because we are still in a mindset of the 1930's, which is long gone if you want to be a competitive business in this Nation. So I urge my colleagues to forget a lot of the rhetoric they have heard and just think about the basics of business. That is, if we work together, management and labor can sit down and figure out how to improve things, how to improve safety so we lower costs, how to improve the quality of the things we produce so they are more salable--how we can make sure we all have a better profit, a better business, a safer business, so we can be healthier and happier. So why in the world can anybody be against the TEAM Act? I just do not know how. I am hopeful my colleagues will understand that this is incredibly important for the future of this Nation. For we are being driven out, in many cases, by our competitors, who understand that teamwork is the answer to their future. I say we had better learn that lesson. And the way we are going to start learning it is pass the TEAM Act so those businesses that do understand what needs to be done can do it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the TEAM Act because I believe that cooperation between the employers and employees is critical to our future. The historical confrontation and conflict model of industrial relations will not serve us in the 21st century. Over 30,000 American companies use employer-employee involvement programs. The TEAM Act addresses the concern that the National Labor Relations Board will discourage future efforts at labor-management cooperation. Specifically, in the Electromation decision, the NLRB held that employer-employee action committees that involved workers meeting with management to discuss attendance problems, no-smoking rules, and compensation issues constituted unlawful company dominated unions. Senator Ashcroft went through a whole list of items which obviously should not have raised the concern of the NLRB. Congress enacted section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act forbidding employer domination of labor organizations, to eliminate the sham unions of the early 1930's. That was an appropriate and necessary act. The TEAM Act is a direct recognition that the world of work has changed since the 1930's, as I stated earlier. In that era, many in American business believed that success could be achieved without involving workers' minds along with their bodies. Today, recognition is widespread among business executives that employee involvement from the shop floor to the executive suite is the best way to succeed. The employee involvement efforts protected by the TEAM Act are not intended to replace existing or potential unions--not intended. In fact, the language of the bill specifically prohibits this result. That is why it is hard for me to concede that the opposition has any merit. The legislation allows employers and employee to meet together to address issues of mutual concern, including issues relating to quality, productivity, and efficiency. However, those efforts are limited by language that prohibits the committees or other joint programs from engaging in collective bargaining or holding themselves out as being empowered to negotiate or to modify collective bargaining agreements. It is very clear, that sets the line, you cannot do what the unions are worried about. Mr. President, the essence of the matter is the definition of a labor organization under the NLRA is so broad that whenever employers and employees get together to discuss such issues, that act arguably creates a labor organization. In that situation, the existing language of section 8(a)(2) comes into play and the question becomes whether the employer has done anything to dominate or support that labor organization. It takes very little for an employer to be found to have violated section 8(a)(2). In prior debates, my Democratic colleagues have disputed whether such domination and support can be as little as providing meeting rooms or pencils and papers for the discussions. However, it is clear that at present no employer can be 100 percent certain that its dealings with a team comply with the law. The standard is simply too unclear. Thus, we have this bill before the Senate. In our earlier debate on this issue, I heard Senator Kennedy state that upwards of 80 percent of American companies are engaging in some form of teamwork or other cooperative workplace programs. His conclusion was that all this activity is taking place now without a change in the law, so there is no need to change the law. However, what that argument misses, Mr. President, is the fact that much of this activity is a technical violation of existing law. While these programs may be doing wonders for the productivity of the companies where they are employed, any of them are no more than a phone call away from running afoul of the NLRA. What this does is places the unions in a position of intimidation, to try and force organization where they may not be able otherwise to get it. It is no defense to an unfair labor practice charge that the program is working, that working conditions and productivity have improved, or that the company's bottom line has risen. None of that matters. If it is a technical violation of the antiquated rule, the NLRB will shut down the work team, fine the company, and force it to sign papers swearing never to do it again. The TEAM Act would prevent the continuation of these absurd results. That is all we are asking for here. I recently was visited by a workplace team from my own State of Vermont. I am certain many of my colleagues in the Senate have had similar visits. There are successful teams operating throughout the country. That is the way it should be. We should keep it that way. The workers who visited me were from the IBM computer-chipmaking facilities in Burlington, VT. The more traditional top-down management style still prevails in most shifts and in most departments in that plant. However, on the night shift at this plant, the workers decided about 3 years ago to try a cooperative work team. They chose the name WENOTI for their group. That name is a combination of the words ``we, not I,'' to symbolize their focus on what is good for all, not just what is good for one. When the team representatives came to my office a few months ago, they were as proud a group of employees as I have ever seen. The WENOTI team consistently leads the plant in all productivity and quality control measures. Moreover, they told me that their job satisfaction has risen directly to the relationship of their ability to contribute meaningfully to the successful completion of their jobs. They were participating, and they were seeing results. IBM is a profitmaking organization, and it is not promoting employee involvement solely out of altruism, but, rather, IBM has come to the realization that employee involvement is vital to the company's bottom line. Doing so has the added dividend of giving employees a greater stake and a greater satisfaction in their job. Time and again, you hear employees praise companies that do not ask them to check their brains at the door. So if affected employers and employees support this legislative effort, what is the problem? It comes as no great surprise that organized labor takes a dim view of it. Oddly enough, to do so, it also must take a dim view of the American worker. Organized labor's arguments are based on the assumption that workers are not smart enough to know the difference between a sham union and a genuine effort to involve them in a cooperative effort to improve a product, improve the productivity, improve the profit, and hopefully, and most likely what will occur, enhance the ability of workers to see increased pay and benefits in their job. In fact, Mr. President, the evil that section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA was designed to prevent was employees being fooled into thinking a union was in the plant to represent their interests when, in reality, it had been set up by the employer to act in the company's best interests. Employers may have been able to get away with that behavior in the 1930's when this provision was written, but I think today's workers are smarter and better informed than ever before. I think that is exactly why the employers are trying to harness their brains as well as their backs, and in the modern-day work force, the need for brains is greater every day. Section 8(a)(2) needs to be amended to reflect the reality of today's work force. That is all that this bill is trying to do. The real problem for unions is, under current law, they have a monopoly on employee involvement. Like the AT&T or the Vermont Republican Party of old, nobody likes to lose their monopoly. But consumers or voters or workers profit from choices in competition, not from a static response to a changing environment. This is clearly the trend of the future. We should not allow an outmoded interpretation of law written for an early era get in the way of this Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the TEAM Act. I urge them to protect the future of this Nation by allowing us to be cooperative and to be productive in the world's economy so we can continue our domination in the world economy.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, my amendment just establishes some equity in covering the cost generated by the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. My amendment, requires the Department of Defense to pay the increase in cost--a small amount; about $11 million--incurred by the additional military dependents who would become eligible for impact aid under the Ford amendment. The underlying amendment offered by my colleague from Kentucky broadens the eligibility criteria for the impact aid program. In 1994, during the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Congress recognized the need to prioritize scarce education dollars and hence targeted funds to the most needy. In the case of the impact aid, we set up a stricter standard to reimburse districts for those students whose parents are employed on Federal property but do not live on such property. I have some misgivings about using this bill to alter education policy. But if we want to do so, then so be it. The amendment that I am offering would simply require the Department of Defense to pay the expense of the amendment for children associated with military activities. The changes made in 1994 eliminated impact aid payments to certain districts. By going back and broadening this definition we will increase the number of eligible districts from approximately 13 to 421. Without my amendment the increased costs will come, not from the Department of Defense, but from the Department of Education. One area where the Department of Defense has traditionally enjoyed a reprieve from carrying its full weight is that of impact aid. Impact aid was designed to offset costs that local communities incur in the education of military dependents or civilians working on military bases because these families are exempt from certain State and local taxes. This is a cost of our national defense program. Mr. President, DOD has accepted the responsibility of bearing the full costs of educating military dependents overseas--it is logical they should assume responsibility for offsetting the costs that occur at home. There is clear precedence for this. Currently, the Department of Defense provides supplemental funding for impact aid schools, between $10 and $50 million--$30 million in fiscal year 1996. This last provision is in the DOD authorization bill and allows the Secretary of Defense to provide supplemental funding for local education agencies [LEA's] in which military activity places a unique burden on the LEA. This amendment follows this policy. We must, for the true defense of this country, serve our children. I understand this amendment is acceptable.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.