Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the problem of retirement security is an ever mounting challenge to the future welfare of our Nation. More than 51 million Americans are not covered by any kind of pension plan. The aging of the baby boom generation will dramatically increase the retired population in proportion to the working population early in the next century. Our Nation is facing certain crisis if we fail to take steps to correct this problem of people working until retirement--and finding that their Social Security benefits fail to maintain adequate and acceptable living standards. Despite the proliferation of retirement products in various forms of IRA's and 401(k) plans, patterns clearly show that those who earn enough to save probably do. Our problem is that over the last 15 years, we have had no increase in the percentage of our workforce that is participating in a qualified pension program. Mr. President, in order to ensure that this Congress does face the issue of retirement security for all working Americans and not just the fortunate minority who are saving, I am introducing with my colleague, Senator Bingaman, the Retirement Security for All Americans Pension Pro-Save Act. The bill we are introducing outlines a concept for pension expansion and portability that has been discussed in this Chamber several times over the last several decades but which has not evolved until now as legislation. The Pension ProSave System would improve the retirement income security of millions of working Americans by encouraging employees to make contributions on their behalf, by facilitating pension portability, by preserving and significantly increasing retirement savings and by simplifying pension law. Despite 17 years of availability of simplified pension plans, pension coverage remains low in the small business sector. Even when covered by a tax-advantaged pension plan, many workers cash out their own contributions made to the pension plan when they leave one job rather than roll them over into another retirement vehicle. Tax penalties unfortunately have not been entirely successful in discouraging the spending of these midcareer retirement savings disbursements. Of the $47.9 billion in preretirement distributions made in 1990, less than 20 percent of recipients reported putting the entire distribution into another tax-qualified retirement plan. The Pension ProSave System is modeled after the highly successful Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association-College Retirement Equity Fund (TIAA-CREF), the largest private pension system in the world with assets over $136 billion and about 1.7 million participants at about 5,500 institutions. This proposal targets those who are working their way toward retirement--and will have little or no private pension plan to supplement their Social Security benefits. Pension Pro-Save is designed to supplement other pension vehicles and will increase pension coverage to millions of American workers, especially for those who work for small businesses. The benefits of Pension ProSave are first, it would provide an incentive and a simple, hassle free way for employers to provide portable pension benefits to their workers. Employees could also make matching contributions to their accounts on a 2:1 basis to a maximum of $5,000. The employer's contributions also would not exceed $5,000. Mr. President, I want to emphasize that these are the employee's accounts-- not the Government's and not the employer's. These accounts will remain with those workers the duration of their lives. Second, Pension ProSave would stop the leakage of retirement savings by furnishing employer's pension contributions into a portability clearinghouse. Worker's account balances would be invested and managed by private sector firms in diversified portfolios. Mr. President, the funds contributed by an employer to the retirement security of his or her employees by way of a ProSave account will remain there and be invested at the direction of the employee until retirement. The Portability Clearinghouse will contract with investment firms to manage funds through the Clearinghouse. Investment options would include a fixed income fund, an equity fund, a Government securities fund, small business capitalization fund, an international fund, and a public infrastructure fund. Employers will have no responsibility for administering a pension fund or managing funds for employees who have left their employment. This should be very attractive to businesses that do not desire to carry long-term responsibilities for workers who have moved on. Employer contributions are locked into the Pension ProSave accounts until retirement, funds contributed by the employee are available to be loaned for certain purposes and under terms established by the Portability Clearinghouse Board. Mr. President, I have no doubt that some who oppose this plan will rattle the cages and make claims that this act is nothing but more big Government, another bureaucratic institution that spreads the Government further into our lives. These claims would be wrong--and will only serve to maintain an economic reality that permits those best off in our society to take advantage and save up to $30,000 a year with Government provided tax advantages for 401(k)s and other employer sponsored private pension plans. Government does have an important role to play because the market has failed to provide the extension of pension coverage to 51 million Americans. It is unacceptable that workers who don't have an employer provided pension plan--can only save $2,000 a year in IRA accounts. We must now do what we can to provide an incentive to employers to provide modest retirement security for more employees. This plan is an enabler--it creates a structure, similar in many ways to the TIAA-CREF model established at the beginning of this century by Andrew Carnegie to provide pension portability for professors and university employees moving between one higher education institution and another. We have a responsibility not only to create a more equitable savings structure for those Americans who have the desire and wherewithal to save--but also to the many Americans who are low-income workers who move from job to job, finding themselves with little or no private pensions to help them in their retirement years. Pension ProSave promotes savings, helps more people reach retirement with pensions, helps buffer against the turbulence of the economy, and provides many employers with a good vehicle for profit sharing. All of these are benefits for our Nation as a whole. Interestingly enough, any plan that succeeds in establishing more retirement security for our working population is scored as costing our country short-term tax revenue. By the year 2029, when the youngest baby boomers reach age 65, more than 68 million persons will be older than 65--accounting for more than 20 percent of the U.S. population, compared to just 12 percent today. As a result, the ratio of workers contributing to Social Security will fall to two workers for every retiree. Rising Medicare and long-term care costs add even more to the savings retirees will need. Mr. President, I ask you and my other colleagues in this Chamber to stop thinking in the short term and not wait until the baby boomers begin to retire. If we do not begin to find the way to increase the ability of private employers and individuals to finance retirement needs the cost to our country will be much greater than revenue loses. Establishing Pension ProSave accounts is an investment that will help our Nation avoid a social train wreck that is just waiting to happen.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the problem of retirement security is an ever mounting challenge to the future welfare of our Nation. More than 51 million Americans are not covered by any kind of pension plan. The aging of the baby boom generation will dramatically increase the retired population in proportion to the working population early in the next century. Our Nation is facing certain crisis if we fail to take steps to correct this problem of people working until retirement--and finding that their Social Security benefits fail to maintain adequate and acceptable living standards. Despite the proliferation of retirement products in various forms of IRA's and 401(k) plans, patterns clearly show that those who earn enough to save probably do. Our problem is that over the last 15 years, we have had no increase in the percentage of our workforce that is participating in a qualified pension program. Mr. President, in order to ensure that this Congress does face the issue of retirement security for all working Americans and not just the fortunate minority who are saving, I am introducing with my colleague, Senator Bingaman, the Retirement Security for All Americans Pension Pro-Save Act. The bill we are introducing outlines a concept for pension expansion and portability that has been discussed in this Chamber several times over the last several decades but which has not evolved until now as legislation. The Pension ProSave System would improve the retirement income security of millions of working Americans by encouraging employees to make contributions on their behalf, by facilitating pension portability, by preserving and significantly increasing retirement savings and by simplifying pension law. Despite 17 years of availability of simplified pension plans, pension coverage remains low in the small business sector. Even when covered by a tax-advantaged pension plan, many workers cash out their own contributions made to the pension plan when they leave one job rather than roll them over into another retirement vehicle. Tax penalties unfortunately have not been entirely successful in discouraging the spending of these midcareer retirement savings disbursements. Of the $47.9 billion in preretirement distributions made in 1990, less than 20 percent of recipients reported putting the entire distribution into another tax-qualified retirement plan. The Pension ProSave System is modeled after the highly successful Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association-College Retirement Equity Fund (TIAA-CREF), the largest private pension system in the world with assets over $136 billion and about 1.7 million participants at about 5,500 institutions. This proposal targets those who are working their way toward retirement--and will have little or no private pension plan to supplement their Social Security benefits. Pension Pro-Save is designed to supplement other pension vehicles and will increase pension coverage to millions of American workers, especially for those who work for small businesses. The benefits of Pension ProSave are first, it would provide an incentive and a simple, hassle free way for employers to provide portable pension benefits to their workers. Employees could also make matching contributions to their accounts on a 2:1 basis to a maximum of $5,000. The employer's contributions also would not exceed $5,000. Mr. President, I want to emphasize that these are the employee's accounts-- not the Government's and not the employer's. These accounts will remain with those workers the duration of their lives. Second, Pension ProSave would stop the leakage of retirement savings by furnishing employer's pension contributions into a portability clearinghouse. Worker's account balances would be invested and managed by private sector firms in diversified portfolios. Mr. President, the funds contributed by an employer to the retirement security of his or her employees by way of a ProSave account will remain there and be invested at the direction of the employee until retirement. The Portability Clearinghouse will contract with investment firms to manage funds through the Clearinghouse. Investment options would include a fixed income fund, an equity fund, a Government securities fund, small business capitalization fund, an international fund, and a public infrastructure fund. Employers will have no responsibility for administering a pension fund or managing funds for employees who have left their employment. This should be very attractive to businesses that do not desire to carry long-term responsibilities for workers who have moved on. Employer contributions are locked into the Pension ProSave accounts until retirement, funds contributed by the employee are available to be loaned for certain purposes and under terms established by the Portability Clearinghouse Board. Mr. President, I have no doubt that some who oppose this plan will rattle the cages and make claims that this act is nothing but more big Government, another bureaucratic institution that spreads the Government further into our lives. These claims would be wrong--and will only serve to maintain an economic reality that permits those best off in our society to take advantage and save up to $30,000 a year with Government provided tax advantages for 401(k)s and other employer sponsored private pension plans. Government does have an important role to play because the market has failed to provide the extension of pension coverage to 51 million Americans. It is unacceptable that workers who don't have an employer provided pension plan--can only save $2,000 a year in IRA accounts. We must now do what we can to provide an incentive to employers to provide modest retirement security for more employees. This plan is an enabler--it creates a structure, similar in many ways to the TIAA-CREF model established at the beginning of this century by Andrew Carnegie to provide pension portability for professors and university employees moving between one higher education institution and another. We have a responsibility not only to create a more equitable savings structure for those Americans who have the desire and wherewithal to save--but also to the many Americans who are low-income workers who move from job to job, finding themselves with little or no private pensions to help them in their retirement years. Pension ProSave promotes savings, helps more people reach retirement with pensions, helps buffer against the turbulence of the economy, and provides many employers with a good vehicle for profit sharing. All of these are benefits for our Nation as a whole. Interestingly enough, any plan that succeeds in establishing more retirement security for our working population is scored as costing our country short-term tax revenue. By the year 2029, when the youngest baby boomers reach age 65, more than 68 million persons will be older than 65--accounting for more than 20 percent of the U.S. population, compared to just 12 percent today. As a result, the ratio of workers contributing to Social Security will fall to two workers for every retiree. Rising Medicare and long-term care costs add even more to the savings retirees will need. Mr. President, I ask you and my other colleagues in this Chamber to stop thinking in the short term and not wait until the baby boomers begin to retire. If we do not begin to find the way to increase the ability of private employers and individuals to finance retirement needs the cost to our country will be much greater than revenue loses. Establishing Pension ProSave accounts is an investment that will help our Nation avoid a social train wreck that is just waiting to happen.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Moseley-Braun and D'Amato to introduce a bill that will give tax incentives to businesses that cleanup these contaminated industrial sites known as brownfields. This bill will put us on a path that will bring environmental renewal and economic revitalization to our communities. Mr. President, brownfields are like scars on the American landscape, a legacy of the dramatic shift of industry from inner cities to suburban greenfields during the 1970's and 1980's. Once bustling factories are now abandoned eyesores. In communities across the country, some 500,000 abandoned and contaminated sites and facilities are in desperate need of revitalization. Vermont may not have as many brownfield sites as some of the more industrial States, but we are just as interested in seeing these cites cleaned up and put back to use. In Vermont, we see the reuse of brownfield sites as a way to keep development downtown and reduce the pressure to pave pastureland. Mr. President, we treasure our open spaces in Vermont and this legislation will give incentives to companies around the country to invest in the downtowns of our States. When a company builds a facility on a brownfield site it takes advantage of existing infrastructure. The revitalization of a brownfield site means one less farm or field is paved over or forest cut down for the sake of a new plant or facility. The redevelopment of brownfield sites also has important social implications for our towns and cites. It means that jobs stay downtown and that our urban centers can continue to be places of commerce and social interaction. I am pleased that the EPA recently awarded one of its brownfields pilot projects to Burlington, VT. Mr. President, since the early 1800's, Burlington has been the largest and most important industrial center of Vermont and the Lake Champlain region. The city is among the least well-off in the State and was recently designated as an Urban Enterprise Community. There are currently 19 polluted commercial and industrial sites in Burlington. The city now has only one unpolluted site available for industrial development. The lack of sites has been a major obstacle in the city's efforts to attract quality jobs and has contributed to the development of prime agricultural soil, suburban sprawl, and all the associated environmental problems. Mr. President, most of the city's brownfields are located either within or adjacent to low- and moderate- income neighborhoods, contributing to a trend of disinvestment and increased health hazards. While this legislation won't solve all of our problems, it is an important step in the right direction and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this significant bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce legislation aimed at helping to stem the dramatic decrease in populations of some of the Earth's most exotic and magnificent animals. Animals such as the African black rhino, the white rhino, the Bengal tiger and other endangered species are on the brink of extinction. Rhinos and tigers are disappearing faster than any other large mammal on the planet. No more than 5,000 to 7,500 Bengal tigers and fewer than 650 Sumatran tigers remain in the world. Ironically, in many ways their rarity and mystique are contributing to the problem. The parts of these animals are advertised as having powerful medicinal qualities. For example, tiger bone and rhino horn are considered to calm convulsions and enhance longevity. The business of trade in endangered species parts and products is becoming big business and encouraging increased poaching of these animals-- threatening international recovery efforts. A booming underground market has developed around the trade of endangered species parts and products. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will address a remaining loophole in the Endangered Species Act that allows the sale of products labeled as containing endangered species. My legislation will amend section 9 of the Endangered Species Act to prohibit the sale of products labeled as containing any species of fish or wildlife listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Through this legislation, we will be addressing the increasing trade in endangered species in two ways--first, by giving U.S. law enforcement officers the ability to prosecute the retailers of these products; and--second, by curbing the marketing of endangered species parts as key ingredients in medicinal products. First, there is currently no legal mechanism to confiscate or prosecute for sale or display of these products once they are on store shelves. Through this legislation, law enforcement officers will be able to start addressing the increasing promotion and sale of products labeled as containing endangered species. By addressing the marketing of these products, this legislation will help curb the expanding domestic U.S. market for medicines that contain, or claim to contain, endangered species parts. By allowing these products to remain on the shelves of stores across the country, we are perpetuating the reliance upon and perception of the efficacy of endangered species I addressing health ailments. Again, this perception is fueling increased poaching and smuggling of endangered species around the world. Mr. President, in order to eliminate the domestic market for patented medicines and other products containing critically endangered tigers, rhinos and other species, and to increase the success and frequency of prosecutions of merchants and traffickers of these items, this change in current law is needed. Let us send a message to these merchants and traffickers of endangered species that the United States will not help feed the global demand for endangered species. Mr. President, let us send a strong and forceful message to our wildlife enforcement officers that we support their efforts to stem the increasing trade in these magnificent animals.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Moseley-Braun and D'Amato to introduce a bill that will give tax incentives to businesses that cleanup these contaminated industrial sites known as brownfields. This bill will put us on a path that will bring environmental renewal and economic revitalization to our communities. Mr. President, brownfields are like scars on the American landscape, a legacy of the dramatic shift of industry from inner cities to suburban greenfields during the 1970's and 1980's. Once bustling factories are now abandoned eyesores. In communities across the country, some 500,000 abandoned and contaminated sites and facilities are in desperate need of revitalization. Vermont may not have as many brownfield sites as some of the more industrial States, but we are just as interested in seeing these cites cleaned up and put back to use. In Vermont, we see the reuse of brownfield sites as a way to keep development downtown and reduce the pressure to pave pastureland. Mr. President, we treasure our open spaces in Vermont and this legislation will give incentives to companies around the country to invest in the downtowns of our States. When a company builds a facility on a brownfield site it takes advantage of existing infrastructure. The revitalization of a brownfield site means one less farm or field is paved over or forest cut down for the sake of a new plant or facility. The redevelopment of brownfield sites also has important social implications for our towns and cites. It means that jobs stay downtown and that our urban centers can continue to be places of commerce and social interaction. I am pleased that the EPA recently awarded one of its brownfields pilot projects to Burlington, VT. Mr. President, since the early 1800's, Burlington has been the largest and most important industrial center of Vermont and the Lake Champlain region. The city is among the least well-off in the State and was recently designated as an Urban Enterprise Community. There are currently 19 polluted commercial and industrial sites in Burlington. The city now has only one unpolluted site available for industrial development. The lack of sites has been a major obstacle in the city's efforts to attract quality jobs and has contributed to the development of prime agricultural soil, suburban sprawl, and all the associated environmental problems. Mr. President, most of the city's brownfields are located either within or adjacent to low- and moderate- income neighborhoods, contributing to a trend of disinvestment and increased health hazards. While this legislation won't solve all of our problems, it is an important step in the right direction and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this significant bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce legislation aimed at helping to stem the dramatic decrease in populations of some of the Earth's most exotic and magnificent animals. Animals such as the African black rhino, the white rhino, the Bengal tiger and other endangered species are on the brink of extinction. Rhinos and tigers are disappearing faster than any other large mammal on the planet. No more than 5,000 to 7,500 Bengal tigers and fewer than 650 Sumatran tigers remain in the world. Ironically, in many ways their rarity and mystique are contributing to the problem. The parts of these animals are advertised as having powerful medicinal qualities. For example, tiger bone and rhino horn are considered to calm convulsions and enhance longevity. The business of trade in endangered species parts and products is becoming big business and encouraging increased poaching of these animals-- threatening international recovery efforts. A booming underground market has developed around the trade of endangered species parts and products. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will address a remaining loophole in the Endangered Species Act that allows the sale of products labeled as containing endangered species. My legislation will amend section 9 of the Endangered Species Act to prohibit the sale of products labeled as containing any species of fish or wildlife listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Through this legislation, we will be addressing the increasing trade in endangered species in two ways--first, by giving U.S. law enforcement officers the ability to prosecute the retailers of these products; and--second, by curbing the marketing of endangered species parts as key ingredients in medicinal products. First, there is currently no legal mechanism to confiscate or prosecute for sale or display of these products once they are on store shelves. Through this legislation, law enforcement officers will be able to start addressing the increasing promotion and sale of products labeled as containing endangered species. By addressing the marketing of these products, this legislation will help curb the expanding domestic U.S. market for medicines that contain, or claim to contain, endangered species parts. By allowing these products to remain on the shelves of stores across the country, we are perpetuating the reliance upon and perception of the efficacy of endangered species I addressing health ailments. Again, this perception is fueling increased poaching and smuggling of endangered species around the world. Mr. President, in order to eliminate the domestic market for patented medicines and other products containing critically endangered tigers, rhinos and other species, and to increase the success and frequency of prosecutions of merchants and traffickers of these items, this change in current law is needed. Let us send a message to these merchants and traffickers of endangered species that the United States will not help feed the global demand for endangered species. Mr. President, let us send a strong and forceful message to our wildlife enforcement officers that we support their efforts to stem the increasing trade in these magnificent animals.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This is a very critical time in the history of the world. Whether we are going to be able to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons is the most critical question that we face. We must work to provide for sanctions for those that do develop weapons. In order for us to have credibility, we have to be willing to accept the fact that we should not test. Otherwise, it is very difficult for us to convince others that they should not test. There has been a fair amount of discussion about the technical details of nuclear testing, both pro and con. I will not go over that ground, but I would like the Senators to step back and examine the big picture for a moment. The real question here is national security. One of the greatest threats to our national security is the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We have been spending a lot of time recently discussing whether we should build extremely expensive systems that might in the distant future protect a fraction of the United States from a nuclear attack. We also know that it would be very hard to protect U.S. forces abroad from a nuclear attack. If nuclear capabilities proliferate to rogue nations, we will be very hard pressed to guarantee the safety of all Americans in the event of a nuclear attack. Clearly, the best way to prevent such an attack is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the first place. That goes to the heart of this amendment. The administration is currently engaged in very sensitive negotiations to achieve a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Successful completion of a strong test ban treaty would do more to protect Americans from nuclear attack than any space shield currently being envisioned. The best way to make sure we are not a target of a nuclear weapon is to prevent the development of nuclear capabilities by more nations. That is what a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will do and attempt to do for us. Passage of the Kyl-Reid amendment would send exactly the wrong signal at a very sensitive time. The amendment says to the rest of the world that we are ready to consider a resumption of testing, just when we finally have agreement among the major nuclear powers that it is time to put an end to nuclear tests. I urge my colleagues to resist this effort to overturn the Hatfield- Mitchell legislation enacted 4 years ago, and to keep this country on the safer course of steady progress toward a comprehensive test ban. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today we dedicate a beautiful area of Alaska as the Mollie Beattie Fish and Wildlife Refuge. More than any person this century, Mollie has led the fight to protect our Nation's natural heritage. Her dedication to preserving wildlife and wildlife habitat and her spirit and enthusiasm in accomplishing this important goal will be appreciated by generations to come. Mollie and I share much in common. We both love the wild, appreciate its complexity and beauty and value that it contributes to our lives. We also recognize the importance of protecting fragile ecosystems, from wetlands to forests. Finally, we both love Vermont and have worked together to preserve its distinctive character. I have followed Mollie's career throughout her time in Vermont and here in Washington. A resident of Vermont since 1968, Mollie used her calm and determined manner and her knowledge of animals, plants, and natural resources to institute policies which today are a model of environmental protection. As a reporter, a University of Vermont professor and the developer of an experimental game bird habitat, Mollie strove to integrate her values into each position and left behind a legacy of success. As Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation in the late 1980's, Mollie oversaw all of Vermont's public lands, including wildlife habitat areas and 48 State parks. In 1989, she became Deputy Secretary for Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources, caring for forests, public lands, water quality, air quality, and wildlife. After a stop over as Executive Director of the Richard A. Snelling Center for Government in Burlington, Mollie was nominated by President Clinton to serve as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I have never known, in my 22 years representing Vermont, a person with greater dedication to preserving our Nation's wildlife. I remember soon after her appointment, Mollie came to visit me here in the Senate. We spent time discussing the future of the refuge system and prospects for Endangered Species Act reform. We also reviewed our Nation's ability to curb the unnecessary slaughter of tigers, rhinos, elephants, and species rapidly disappearing from other countries. Her commitment to ending the rapid loss of species was remarkable. Since her arrival here in Washington, she recognized the importance of our Nation's wildlife refuge system and has been successful in protecting these vital resources. She did so effectively and I assure you that our children and their children will forever cherish this determined woman's work. During her tenure at the Fish and Wildlife Service, Mollie visited Alaska several times and shared with me some of her special memories of the State. These visits made a remarkable impression on Mollie, especially her trip to the Arctic Refuge two summers ago. I can think of no better tribute than to name the 8 million acres of wilderness in the Arctic Refuge after Mollie. This area captures the ideals and beauty that Mollie strove to protect while at the Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. President, I want to thank Mollie Beattie on behalf of all my colleagues in the U.S. Senate and all Americans for all that she has done to make America a more beautiful Nation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today we dedicate a beautiful area of Alaska as the Mollie Beattie Fish and Wildlife Refuge. More than any person this century, Mollie has led the fight to protect our Nation's natural heritage. Her dedication to preserving wildlife and wildlife habitat and her spirit and enthusiasm in accomplishing this important goal will be appreciated by generations to come. Mollie and I share much in common. We both love the wild, appreciate its complexity and beauty and value that it contributes to our lives. We also recognize the importance of protecting fragile ecosystems, from wetlands to forests. Finally, we both love Vermont and have worked together to preserve its distinctive character. I have followed Mollie's career throughout her time in Vermont and here in Washington. A resident of Vermont since 1968, Mollie used her calm and determined manner and her knowledge of animals, plants, and natural resources to institute policies which today are a model of environmental protection. As a reporter, a University of Vermont professor and the developer of an experimental game bird habitat, Mollie strove to integrate her values into each position and left behind a legacy of success. As Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation in the late 1980's, Mollie oversaw all of Vermont's public lands, including wildlife habitat areas and 48 State parks. In 1989, she became Deputy Secretary for Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources, caring for forests, public lands, water quality, air quality, and wildlife. After a stop over as Executive Director of the Richard A. Snelling Center for Government in Burlington, Mollie was nominated by President Clinton to serve as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I have never known, in my 22 years representing Vermont, a person with greater dedication to preserving our Nation's wildlife. I remember soon after her appointment, Mollie came to visit me here in the Senate. We spent time discussing the future of the refuge system and prospects for Endangered Species Act reform. We also reviewed our Nation's ability to curb the unnecessary slaughter of tigers, rhinos, elephants, and species rapidly disappearing from other countries. Her commitment to ending the rapid loss of species was remarkable. Since her arrival here in Washington, she recognized the importance of our Nation's wildlife refuge system and has been successful in protecting these vital resources. She did so effectively and I assure you that our children and their children will forever cherish this determined woman's work. During her tenure at the Fish and Wildlife Service, Mollie visited Alaska several times and shared with me some of her special memories of the State. These visits made a remarkable impression on Mollie, especially her trip to the Arctic Refuge two summers ago. I can think of no better tribute than to name the 8 million acres of wilderness in the Arctic Refuge after Mollie. This area captures the ideals and beauty that Mollie strove to protect while at the Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. President, I want to thank Mollie Beattie on behalf of all my colleagues in the U.S. Senate and all Americans for all that she has done to make America a more beautiful Nation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Senator Robert J. Dole of Russell, KS for his 35 years of service in the U.S. Congress. Tuesday was a sad day for the U.S. Senate, for we lost one of our great leaders. It was also a sad day for me personally, for I lost a trusted colleague and a valued friend in the Senate. As the Republican leader in the Senate for 11 years, Senator Dole has left his fingerprints on every piece of legislation that has passed the Congress. His legacy will be remembered forever as one of vast legislative achievement. I got my first glimpse of Senator Dole's legislative abilities when I came to Congress in 1975. In the wake of Watergate, and the massive congressional turnover that ensued, I was secured the position of ranking member of the House Agriculture Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the dairy industry. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Dole and I worked closely together on many issues. I remember well the bonds we formed as conferees together on farm bills and working together to pass legislation for food stamps and child nutrition. Later, as I gained seniority on the House Education and Labor Committee, we worked together again on disability policy. Senator Dole's commitment and determination to the passage of legislation ensuring that all Americans, regardless of physical disability, had equal opportunity was inspirational. In 1989 when I became a member of the U.S. Senate, I had the privilege of seeing Senator Dole's leadership abilities first-hand everyday. I have watched with amazement his ability to pull legislative initiatives out of the fire, and prevail on issues from civil rights to Social Security reform. In Vermont there's a saying, ``You can't get there from here.'' Well, Senator Dole proved that adage wrong time and time again as he has moved legislation through the Senate. In an institution where you are only as good as your word, Senator Dole prospered. His ability to build coalitions and form consensus on some of this Nation's most pressing issues is a testament to his integrity and character. In a world that has become ever more crude and impertinent, Senator Dole has defined ``the word'' civility. Tuesday was a bittersweet day, for although I'm sad Senator Dole has left us in the Senate, I know he'll be close by as he seeks higher aspirations. I only hope that he knows that this is one Senator who feels that the U.S. Senate will never be the same without him. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution deserves accolades for its goal of achieving a balanced budget by the year 2002. I support this worthy ambition, yet I cannot fully support the manner in which it achieves this result. Unfortunately, the resolution before us today requires education to shoulder an unhealthy portion of discretionary cuts in order to achieve a balanced budget. As I have said countless times in the past, cutting education spending may--on paper--help balance the budget. In reality, however, cuts in eduction do the exact opposite. Decreases in education spending gut already scarce dollars for programs designed to raise the standard of living, provide better jobs and training, and consequently increase our tax base resulting in more revenue to fill the Federal coffers. Let us not be shortsighted and limit the most critical investment we can make toward a future downpayment on our debt. For these reasons I support the amendment offered by my colleague from Pennsylvania to restore funding for education discretionary spending. My colleagues may argue that we are not cutting education funding but simply limiting its growth. It is true that this resolution provides an increase of $1 billion in fiscal year 1997 over last year's allotment. I will concede that this does not constitute a decrease in the strict sense of the word. However, it clarly is a decrease when taking inflationary costs into account. In fact, CBO has indicated that it represents a decrease in outlays of approximately $1.7 billion in the first year alone. The foundation of Federal education leadership is built on keeping promises to our young children at risk; creating greater access to higher education for all; and guiding the country to help keep our children's education at a standard that is competitive with the rest of the world's. We cannot possibly keep this promise if, as this resolution proposes, we decrease education discretionary spending by close to $2 billion in fiscal year 1997 alone. Public awareness of our need to reform education is growing. Polls show that the public is coming to understand the enormous costs of the failure to educate our children. Eighty-six percent of those surveyed by the recent PBS/National Issues Convention felt that we are spending too little money on education and training. However, we continue to ignore the clear desires of our constituents. During last year's budget debate we essentially went through the same routine. The fiscal year 1996 resolution also cut education discretionary spending but a successful floor amendment, offered by my colleague from Maine, restored funding for education programs. Americans understand intuitively that investing in education is the key to our future success, and the best possible national investment that we can make as a country. When the rest of the country gets it and we do not, I sometimes wonder who really needs the education. Support of the Specter amendment is truly critical. Countless studies document that American children are not keeping peace with their international counterparts. Well publicized reports continue to show that in math and science we have not kept pace with our foreign counterparts. In a recent study, American students came in last, behind Slovenia. More astonishing, reports indicate that 50 percent of those who graduated from high school in recent years graduated functionally illiterate. The basic problem is reading comprehension. Keep in mind also that nationally, up to 30 percent of our ninth graders eventually drop out of school altogether. This is totally unacceptable. How can our businesses be expected to compete when they are delivered potential workers of this quality? Money is not the solution, by any means, to the trouble our society faces. However, when programs, specifically designed to address educationally disadvantaged students in reading and writing, only serve a fraction of the eligible population we do those children and our country a disservice. When programs designed to prevent dropout barely keep pace with inflation yet dropout percentages boom, we know that more funding is critical. When governors and high powered CEO's come together--on their own time and money--to speak about education needs, you know that indeed education is of such national significance that it can no longer be pushed aside as the stepchild of Federal public policy. And while money may not be a panacea it does make a difference. What have we done when we needed to highlight a major problem or national priority? We committed the resources necessary to match our goals. Take for example the space program during our race to the Moon with the Russians, we did not decrease funding in order to beat our competition, we increased it considerable and the dividends paid off. We are in no less of a crisis today with our education situation than we were with Sputnik--now is the time to take action. The Specter amendment achieves, the very basic first step--level funding for education in this year's budget. We cannot, in good conscience do anything less. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here to speak in favor of the centrist budget request. I remember so many years ago when I was in the House when we had a similar problem with the inability to get together on a budget. A number of us in the middle decided we would put together the answer to the budget. We worked very hard on it. We did a good job. We then went to the votes. There were three choices. There was the liberal, there was the conservative, and there was the middle. The liberal budget went down by a fair number of votes. The conservative budget went down by a fair number of votes. We thought, Wow, we're right in the middle here. We're going to get all the votes. We got fewer than anybody. My point is, perhaps I know we are not going to win tonight, but I bet the budget we end up with in the final analysis is going to be very close to what we are proposing here tonight. Let me talk a little bit about what the major problems are. First of all, we have accomplished quite a bit this year. We recognize there is a problem. For the first time in my memory in this Congress for over 23 years, there is a consensus that we have to have a balanced budget. The President agrees we have to have a balanced budget. The House and Senate do. But how do you get there? You do not get there by any easy way. There is no easy way to a balanced budget. You have to tackle the toughest aspects of it. One of those, which I spoke about at some length on Friday, is health care. One-half of the budget problem is the fact that we have not a health care system where the Federal costs are under control. That can be done, but only if we have the willpower to do it and to get to capitated payments on the Federal side. Previously, I have spoken about the need for us to look to the future. All you have to do is buy the Atlantic Monthly if you want to see how deep the trouble is that we are in. This month's Atlantic Monthly shows, if we do not do something about Social Security, if we do not change the rate at which it is paid out, by the year 2040, I think it is, they say the annual deficit in Social Security will be $766 billion. We cannot wait until then. What is one thing we can do? We can take a realistic look at that thing here that controls our entitlement programs. That is the CPI. It takes courage to do that because every interest group is going to be screaming at you if you do. But not too long from now we will find there will be revealed to us the experts' analysis of what that CPI ought to be. It will be somewhere between 0.7 and 2 percent. No one is willing to argue that we should decrease the CPI by 2 percent, but we have had the courage to come forward and say we must make a change in this direction. So we have done so with a 0.5 percent decrease in the CPI that, because of the exponential results that you have by going forward with this change, whether it be Social Security or all the other things which are affected by a Consumer Price Index, it will be lower and lower and lower as we go to the future. So if we are ever going to get this budget under control, first we have to get health care costs under control and, secondly, we have to reduce the CPI to a more realistic number. Those two things alone will do it. I speak also because I am on the discretionary spending committee, the biggest one, Labor and Human Resources. I am also on the Appropriations Committee and on the subcommittee that is in those areas. I know, as a leader of that committee, that there is no way that we are going to be able to do the things that need to be done, in the area of education in particular, unless we get the costs of the entitlements and the costs of health care under control. What do we have to do for education? Another thing we have accomplished this year. If we do nothing else, we have agreed, the House, the Senate and the President, that we should not cut education. For many years now we have had the realization that we have a horrendous problem of training our young people for employment. That is the other thing which is so critically important, and that is to have a good job. If people do not have good jobs, we do not have the kind of revenues that we can have, we do not have the kind of productivity that this Nation needs and must have in order for us to balance the budget. In the area of education, we have finally agreed we should not cut. But there is much more that needs to be done in that. I want to say again, I commend Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux for bringing us together to bring us to what we can do to bring this budget under control. Mr. President, balancing the budget is a task that is long overdue, one that we should have tackled long before the Federal debt began to escalate in the early 1980's. Our carelessness in financial planning is a terrible legacy to leave our children and grandchildren. When I voted in the House in 1986 against the balanced budget constitutional amendment, I stated at the time we could not wait to balance the budget the number of years required to get it approved by the States. However, 10 years later the situation has become much worse. Now I realize that is imperative we move forward without the amendment. Any further delay will greatly increase the damage to national economic stability. If we do not begin to balance the budget before the year 2002 our national debt will be a staggering $6.4 trillion. The debt will double again over the next 15 years and quickly redouble again within the next 7 years. The basic problem is the increasing cost of entitlement programs. These are programs outside of the appropriations process. They have increased well beyond the growth of revenues and population. In addition, it appears through generosity or otherwise they have increased at a rate greater than the actual cost of living created by inflation. Our proposal recognizes this for the future. This will make additional cuts in discretionary programs such as education less necessary. But it does so in a way which may actually protect these programs from a greater decrease which will be recommended this June by a panel of experts. The entitlements that have provided the greatest problems are in the area of health care. The increasing projected costs in Medicaid and Medicare represent about one-half of the increasing cost problem. We cannot continue to run a Federal fee for service system. Trying to control costs without controlling utilization has not worked, there are too many ways that costs can be shifted to these programs. Progress in this area will be controlled by more State responsibility. But my colleagues who are on committees of relevant jurisdiction must work to move to a Federal capitated system combined with utilization of private insurance methodologies and Federal guidelines to get these costs under control. It is interesting to note that in 1954 the Eisenhower administration introduced legislation along these lines when it recognized some Federal system was required. The purpose of the bill was, ``to encourage and stimulate private initiative in making good and comprehensive services generally accessible on reasonable terms through adequate health prepayment plans, to the maximum number of people * * * by making a form of reinsurance available for voluntary health service prepayment plans where such reinsurance is needed in order to stimulate the establishment and maintenance of adequate prepayment plans in areas, and with respect to services and classes of persons, for which they are needed.'' I believe this gives us a possible route implemented through individual choice to get us out of our present health care cost mess. We must find the way to control uncontrolled cost shifts and to spread the cost of the sick over the widest base. Hopefully the Finance Committee and the Labor and Human Resource Committee will join in achieving this goal. Mr. President, like my colleagues in this centrist coalition, I want a Federal budget that is balanced in an equitable manner. In reaching a balanced budget we must be careful not to cut those programs which could be counterproductive to balancing the budget. In other words, cuts in one program can result in increased costs in other programs, thus making it more difficult to balance the budget. This budget proposal accomplishes this goal by making the tough decisions necessary to balance the budget within 7 years and still maintain a strong commitment to discretionary spending. Unlike other budget proposals, this plan provides for cuts to the overall discretionary spending that are both achievable and modest. Mr. President, there are many important programs within the discretionary accounts that needed to be maintained. The centrist group realizing the importance of discretionary spending provided modest increases to the discretionary accounts, such as in education and the environment. Our bipartisian plan contains some $50 million less in discretionary cuts than the latest President's budget, and $121 billion less than the Republican plan. Our plan will leave future Congresses with the ability to adequately fund discretionary programs, while these other plans will leave future Congresses with no choice but to eliminate many important programs. It is unrealistic to think that some future Congress will make these tough decisions, decisions that this Congress is unwilling to do. I would like to highlight just a few examples of the important of maintaining the discretionary accounts. One example can be seen in Federal health research spending. We are nearing discoveries and new treatments to the causes of many illnesses and diseases, such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons. The centrist coalition provides the flexibility to maintain spending on medical research. It is well known that for every dollar spent on health research, several dollars are saved by the Federal Government. This spending on health research could allow for the ptential to eliminate tens of billions of dollars in Federal health care costs over the next decade or more. Another example of this group's commitment is in providing adequate education funding. As a group we understand that this Nation faces a crisis--a crisis which is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues, decreased economic productivity and increased social costs, such as welfare, crime, and health care. Mr. President, business leaders warn us that unless improvements are made in our educational system, our futrue will be even bleaker. The rising costs of higher education combined with the lower income levels of middle-income families is causing thousands not to finish college, and fewer to attend grduate school in critical areas such as math, science, and engineering. As chairman of the Education Subcommittee, I am particulalry concerned about maintaining funding for education, and I have worked with my colleagues in this centrist group to ensure that adequate funding will be protected within education programs. In order to help solve the deficit problem, and as importantly, to prevent unnecessary hardship to individuals, this group's plan protects the Federal commitment to education, health research, and many other discretionary spending areas by providing the least amount of cuts of any plan yet offered. Mr. President, I am committed to balancing this budget, but not on the backs of the poor, the elderly, and our children. This budget proposal is the only plan that protects the neediest Americans while balancing the budget. Now, Mr. President, I would like to comment more specifically on the role of education in our deficit problem. Today, I will talk about the need to be careful on how we cut, especially in the field of education. I am the chairman of the Senate Education Subcommittee and, therefore, have a particular responsibility to make sure that what we do from this point on does not in any way inhibit the ability of this Nation to be able to meet its commitments to its young, but most importantly its commitments to this Nation that we maintain our ability to be the most competitive and the most economically sound nation in the world. I am afraid, as I look across the Congress to see where cuts are being made. I also recognize the future needs of our Nation, especially in the area of education. For without immediate attention by this Nation on our educational system, we are facing incredible danger for our economic future. We cannot move forward without recognizing that cuts within the educational system may well prove to be counterproductive--counterproductive in that they will reduce the potential revenues that we would otherwise have and that they will only increase the social costs that we are presently experiencing. So let me now, as we go into the 21st century, take a look at where we are with respect to education and the need for us, a Nation, to place ourselves in a more competitive position within the international economic community. In order for our country to remain viable in the global economy we must not only be free from crippling interest payments on our debt, but we must also prioritize our spending so that we maneuver ourselves to be ready to face the challenges of the new millennium. If we do not act now, we will destroy the dreams that we cherish--good health, a good education, a good job, and a good retirement. Some have proposed that we reduce the deficit simply by making across-the-board cuts on all programs. Such cuts might provide a solution to our financial woes in the short term, but they only exacerbate the deficit in the long term. Here is why. If we cut back on programs for education and training, we lose our competitive edge in the marketplace, resulting in a lower standard of living, fewer high paying jobs, less Federal revenues in taxes, and, naturally, a larger deficit. On the other hand, if we work to improve our education system, we not only increase our national productivity, but our standard of living will increase, resulting in greater Federal revenues and a decreased need to invest in our social programs. The deficit will not be solved unless we're willing to solve the causes. Education is critical. It must be improved. General Marshall stated years ago in his frustration over delays in designing the Marshall plan ``stop kicking the problem around, just solve it.'' I believe this advice applies to the larger problem that we face today. If we solve the larger problem, then this will solve those immediate ones that we look at with respect to our inability to fund the various programs we all desire to fund. For if we do not improve our educational system, and if we are unable to solve the deficit problem, we cannot ensure that we have the capacity to provide for the programs we need. And then we will find that the problem of balancing our budget is unsolvable and that this Nation will disappear in the next millennium as a lesser nation. The way to solve the problem of our deficit is not, as some suggest, mindless across-the-board cuts. Solutions to our financial woes are long-term investments--specifically in our education system. By not solving the problem of reduced productivity and higher costs through education failures, interest payments will keep increasing, tax revenues will keep decreasing, and our deficit will only grow larger. More mindless cuts is not the answer. Instead, thoughtful investments and adequate resources are the solution to our long-term fiscal concerns. Consider for a moment the education spending patterns over the last decade. Since the beginning of the 1980's overall Federal support for education, after adjusting for inflation, has decreased by 5-percent. Funds for elementary and secondary education declined 15 percent, while postsecondary education funds declined 24 percent. Where has that led us? Certainly, not to the first class education system we all support. In fact, using the six education goals developed by a bipartisan group of Governors in 1989 as our barometer, we are not close to reaching our mark of excellence in education. Among the goals for our future is that our children come to school ready to learn, that they come without hunger, and that they come with the capacity to be able to understand the education that they are going to be faced with. That means they must first be fed, immunized, and, hopefully, have had some preschool experience. However, only 45 percent of young children from low-income families are enrolled in preschool programs and only 55 percent of infants have been fully immunized, protecting them against childhood diseases. Head Start continues to only serve one-fourth of all eligible children in this Nation. We also recognize that educated people who can compete in the global marketplace require a mastery in challenging core subject areas--such as math and science--and that all adults be literate and prepared for life-long learning. Unfortunately, in these basic areas, we are far from the finish line. The 1993 National Assessment of Educational Progress indicates more than 75 percent of students at all grade levels failed to achieve even the basic level of proficiency, and over 60 percent failed to meet the proficiency level in English. In international comparisons, American students consistently score below most other industrialized nations. In the 1992 international assessment of education progress U.S. 13- year-olds scored second to last among the nations in mathematics achievement, and similarly in science. More recently, a report recently came out that investigated the literacy of children that graduate from high school. The report found that 51 percent of the students now graduating from our high schools were functionally illiterate. That is, incapable of handling an entry- level job with their educational achievement. Make no mistake about it. These disturbing statistics are not about someone else's children. They are not someone else's problem. These are our children. These are our problems. Our future work force and our future leaders. The quality of our public schools in America is directly related to the standard of living of each and every citizen. Without a strong investment ion education, this Nation will not be able to maintain an adequate number of highly skilled workers. These workers are necessary if our country is to maintain a competitive position within the global marketplace. To give you a quick idea of why curing our educational ills is critical and key to our future, we will examine a yearly cost of our failing educational system. The total cost of our failure in education to our economy has been estimated to be one-half trillion dollars each year to our economy. The lost revenue alone has been estimated to be about $125 billion. That is, if the educational levels were where they should be, the income to the Nation, relative to furnishing our budget, could be higher by $125 billion, putting us a long ways toward being able to have the budget balanced. For example, American business spends approximately $200 billion a year to perform training for employees which is necessary to provide those individual minimum skills required to perform on the job, skills most of which should have been taught in the schools. The Department of Education estimates that 30 million Americans are functionally illiterate, another 46 million are marginally literate. This creates a significant problem for our economy. ``Combating Illiteracy in the Workplace,'' by Robert Goddard, puts the cost of this illiteracy at a staggering $225 billion a year. This includes lost productivity, unrealized taxes, crime, welfare, health, housing, and other social costs. We pay for our failed educational system every time an individual drops out of high school. Lack of a high school degree costs an individual $440,000 in lifetime earnings. These lost earnings often drive these individuals into welfare, crime, and drugs. Up to 80 percent of our people that are incarcerated in our State jails are functionally illiterate, school dropouts. Federal expenditures for welfare were $208 billion in the fiscal year 1992. The cost of incarceration, which I mentioned, is $25 billion per year and growing, and the medical costs of violent crime is another $18 billion per year. Illegal drugs cost the economy $238 billion a year, as estimated by Brandeis University. These difficult circumstances perpetuate themselves generation after generation. I think most Americans agree, and in poll after poll people cite the quality of education as a paramount concern. And this view is growing each year. The support for education in these polls is often cited as one of the most important roles of Government. Americans understand intuitively that investing wisely in education is the key to our future success and the best possible national investment we can make for the country. The evidence is clear: Countries which spend more on education per pupil have higher levels of per capita GDP. Institutions like Motorola report corporate savings of $30 to $35 for every dollar on training. That is a 3000- to 3500-percent rate of return. But most of that education, if you read the report, was to make their students literate to put them in a position where they could read. They found, amazingly in their study, they were having trouble with their employees answering simple math problems and they could not believe they do not have the capacity to do the math, when they found out the problem was they could not read the problems. Thus they had to teach them how to read to do simple math problems. That is the state of the situation, and that is Motorola, one who can be selective in their employees. People, as rational consumers, also realize investing in their own education leads to substantially higher lifetime earnings. A person with a bachelor's degree earns over 1.5 times of the person with a high school degree. A professional degree earns over 350 percent higher lifetime earnings than a high school diploma in itself. While we recognize both intuitively and through research the economic rewards of education, we do not simultaneously invest the funds necessary to support the position. Many of my colleagues, while acknowledging the importance of educational investments, argue that throwing money at education is not the solution. I could not agree more. Increasing educational expenditures in itself will not solve our country's educational deficiencies. We have a responsibility to invest educational dollars wisely, including more active congressional oversight over Federal initiatives. Simultaneously, we must also reinvigorate our schools by demanding that students learn to high academic standards. Why? Because the status quo in our schools has failed. Too many of our graduates finish school without knowing the three R's, much less more rigorous academic standards. Clearly, there is no room for federally mandated standards. We should be providing incentives for States and communities to set up goals for student achievement--pupil by pupil, and school by school. More importantly, they must know what standards this Nation must reach, if we are going to be able to continue to compete internationally. It is one thing to believe that our education, as most people in this country do, has improved over the time they were in school, and I find that is true for myself. I am amazed that the students in high schools are taking subjects which I did not get until college. What they do not realize, for instance, in a recent report on the comparison of our students to other nation's students we fared poorly. One example is with Taiwanese students. These students when they graduate are 2 years ahead of our students in many subjects, such as in math. Is it any wonder we come out last in these tests, or next to last? What is important is that we know and that the States know that we do have a problem. That this Nation is faced with a very serious educational problem, and if we do not do something about it, we will not be the Nation we must and should be in the next generation. So we must be sure that when we begin to reduce the budget to try and balance it that we do not do counterproductive cuts which will decrease our revenues and increase our social costs. rather than cutting the deficit it will increase the deficit. The dreams of good health, a good education, a good life, and a good retirement can only be realized by setting high priorities on education and educational investment. These increases are essential if our country wishes to remain viable into and throughout the next century.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we yield back all time on our side.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President I allocate myself 5 minutes on the budget. Mr. President, as we consider the budget at this time, I think it is critically important that we remind ourselves what the very key problem to the budget at the Federal level is and what ought to and can be done to correct the problem. I think it is important that we concentrate on what the basic problem is--Federal health care costs. I am reminded of the words of George Marshall after World War II when he was attempting to devise the Marshall plan. There were all sorts of problems that were created and discussed and kicked around. Finally, he held a meeting and said, ``Don't fight the problem; decide it.'' That is what I believe we ought to do here with respect to health care. We have kicked around with changes to Medicaid. We have fought over Medicare costs. But the deficit continues to increase. About one-half of the deficit is related to the health care costs of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. Thus, as we go forward, it is clear if we do not get the increasing costs of these programs down, the hope of having a rational budget in the years ahead becomes very difficult, if not impossible. If these costs continue to increase at the current levels soon it will result in about half a trillion dollars in the Federal deficit. If we could take that half a trillion and use it for other matters, whether it is education or whatever, then the cuts in discretionary spending we are dealing with now which are creating all of the consternation would be pretty much a thing of the past. It is clear the most effective and most painless way to solve the budget problem is to solve the health care cost problem. If we analyze the problem and also look at the public's concerns and desires, it becomes clear we can solve it by both looking to conventional insurance concepts, combined with health care reform already under way in this country. People perceive the most difficult health care threat they face is a catastrophic medical event. I have a chart here which shows that what people want the most out of health care reform is catastrophic health care coverage. I emphasize the words ``coverage.'' Catastrophic coverage is not a mandated benefit. You might remember last month I made an attempt here to raise the lifetime caps in private health plans in order to ensure that people did not find themselves forced into the unfortunate situation of having to go bankrupt in order to qualify for the Medicaid Program in order to have health care coverage. Mr. President, according to a recent survey conducted by the Aragon Consulting Group out of St. Louis, MO, 82 percent of the people fear most that some day they will end up in bankruptcy and on a Federal health care program because they do not have catastrophic health care coverage. Let us take a look at what the present situation is, and, more important than that, see what we can do to solve the problem. Unless we get coverage to people--I point out that coverage is the important thing here. Right now we have millions of people who have no coverage at all because they work for an employer who does not provide coverage, or because individual health insurance coverage is too expensive and since they are not wealthy citizens they cannot afford health care. On the other hand, we have millions and millions of people who have coverage but not adequate coverage. They can have interim caps and annual caps on coverage. As I talked about before, they can have the overall lifetime cap on coverage, which means after an arbitrary amount of money is paid out by the insurance company or employer, then they have to look to their own private resources to finance their health care needs. The best way to solve the health care cost problem is to use the basics of insurance. As I will point out later this is not something new. In the 1950's, the Eisenhower administration designed a reinsurance program that provided incentives in the market, very much like the one I will outline, to provide private health insurance to everyone. In 1993, the Clinton administration came forward with a plan. That plan would have, in the final analysis, provided health coverage for everyone. Eventually, the Federal Government would phase ourselves out of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs and we could end up with a system that would bring the costs under control. However, that was thrown out because it was too complicated. So we moved away from that. Around that same time, I had a plan I called MediCore which would have similarly solved the problems--I am goal oriented--and would have solved the problems by placing the States in a position where they could ensure everyone had coverage and the Federal Government would be out of it. Now, since that time, we have moved toward incremental reform. That is fine. The Health Insurance Reform Act, that we passed unanimously, was a good first step. But this bill does not address how we expect to get our Federal health costs under control. One of the most important issues we will be addressing this year is changes in the way we finance health care for senior citizens, persons with disabilities, the underinsured and uninsured. I wholeheartedly support reducing the deficit as well as moving the Government out of the role of running a health plan for the elderly and the disabled. The reason the Government's health care spending is out of control is really twofold. First, is the way we have chosen to pay for purchase services. When Medicare was designed in the 1960's it was modeled after private Blue Cross fee-for-service plans. The Government paid providers directly for each procedure performed. Paying for services rendered at a distance without any effective utilization control has been a disaster. Our failed attempts to control costs by continuing to cut payments to providers is a major reason our Federal deficit is so exorbitant. How can reducing provider payments have the effect of actually increasing our Federal deficit? The answer is the cost-shift this creates between insurance provided by the public sector with that provided by the private sector. Cost-shifting has only distorted the true costs of services and hides the inefficiencies in our overall health care delivery system. Second, the private market's failure to provide affordable coverage on reasonable terms to the elderly, disabled, and the poor led to the political demand for the Congress to create Medicare and Medicaid. The major design flaw of these entitlement programs was segregating the highest insurance risks into Government run plans. This segmentation has not provided any incentives for the private sector to find innovative ways to manage the highest cost cases in our health care delivery system. As a matter of fact, this segmentation is how people are shifted from private health plans to Government run health plans. The key to getting health care costs under control and to reduce our deficit is to utilize the most basic insurance principle of spreading risk of aberrational cases over a large number of people. This cost-shift from private insurance plans to the public insurance plans was the main argument I made during the debate we had on this floor last month when we unanimously passed the Health Insurance Reform Act. You might remember an amendment I brought to the floor regarding lifetime caps in private insurance plans. The cold dollar facts proved over and over again were that by removing these caps we would save billions of dollars in our entitlement programs. The accounting firm of Price Waterhouse estimated the savings to Medicaid would be $7 billion over 7 years. The National Taxpayers Union estimated that the Federal Government would save $3 billion and the State and local government would save $2 billion over 5 years. In addition, CBO scored the increase cost to businesses already providing coverage to their employees at 0.16 percent. Again the reason this cost to business is small is because we are spreading high-cost cases over about 165 million privately insured individuals. By the way, since the FEHB plans already have no lifetime caps there is no additional cost to the Federal Government as employer. This small change in lifting coverage limits would provide the American public with the same peace of mind we, U.S. Senators, have in the event a catastrophic illness or injury hits one of our family members. Central to any restructuring of the health insurance system is the understanding that what changes are made in the Government programs affect the private sector and visversa. The key is to find a mechanism that can act as a bridge between the public and private sectors. The solution that I have developed is a Federal Health Care Reinsurance Corporation. The mission of this agency is to provide for a true public private partnership in providing affordable private health insurance to all Americans The operating functions of the Corporation will be contracted out to the private market, therefore the principle function of the Corporation will be policymaking. The Reinsurance Corporation provides the market incentives for plans to compete and manage the care of people who have, in the past, been ``dumped'' into the public entitlement programs because of high cost medical conditions. All health plans will participate in the financing of high-cost cases and, therefore, all health plans may draw on the fund for assistance in covering expenses for qualifying high-cost individuals. Payments would be made to health plans on behalf of an individual who becomes a high-cost case because of a particular medical condition. It is not a ``special'' health insurance for pool for individuals with high medical expenses. The Reinsurance Corporation would make it possible for private sector health plans to compete for the chronically ill and disabled population since plans would be protected against large aberrational costs associated with insuring these individuals. In order to make it feasible for private health plans to accept all comers it will be necessary to decouple the reinsurance payment from the level of risk that the health plans has accepted. Once the fund is operational, it would no longer be necessary for a health plan to exclude a high-cost person: The correct market response would be to apply to the fund for a payment on the person's behalf. Since the payment would follow the consumer, the consumer is always free to change plans if he or she is not satisfied with the quality of service in any particular health plan. As we tackle one of the biggest problems for the Federal Government, our deficit, we must keep in mind a goal we all agreed to a couple of years ago--the goal of moving toward universal coverage for all Americans. We must keep in mind that any changes we make to the public programs of Medicare and Medicaid must not add to the rolls of the uninsured, especially if it is due to unintended consequences of our changes to these programs. More uninsured Americans will only increase total costs to the health care system. We must develop a mechanism that provides the private health insurance market the incentive to cover higher cost individuals at reasonable prices rather than continue to allow the private sector to shift high-cost individuals into our public programs. Prior to the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, the Eisenhower administration proposed to deal with the private sector's risk averse behavior in health insurance by creating a Government-sponsored reinsurance program. The idea was to create a Government program that would demonstrate to the private sector that private insurance of higher risk clientele was feasible. If designed correctly, the Federal Health Reinsurance Corporation might be able to accomplish what President Eisenhower suggested over 40 years ago, have a well-functioning private sector health insurance system that competes for all members of society simply on quality and price.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. If you have a question for me, I will be happy to yield to you for the question.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I think we ought to get back to the extremely important issue which is before us today, and that is the TEAM Act. I am a cosponsor of the TEAM Act because I believe that cooperation between employers and employees is the wave of the future, and it should have been the wave of the past. We went into it at length yesterday, in discussing what happened some 40 years ago when the issues were how management and labor can get together and go into the future in order to work hand in hand to improve productivity. The problem was we did not change the then so- called Taylor policy of real confrontation and arm's-length negotiations between the workers and management. Our competitors--and this is the issue of the day--on the other hand, in Europe and in Asia, said, ``Great idea over in America. You have a great idea.'' Briefly, I would say, there was a U.S. company that did the same thing, the Donnelly Corp. If you want to read a record of the difficulties they have had over the years, trying to defend what is entirely within the TEAM Act's perspective and would be allowable matters for them to get together and improve productivity, you will understand why we are here today--to get rid of the ambiguities, to make it crisp and clear that, if a company works with employees on productivity, as long as they do not get into matters of collective bargaining, et cetera, it is perfectly allowable. But right now there are thousands of teams that are out there that are in jeopardy of being brought to the NLRB and then being given an order to get rid of the team they are working with, and they could be fined. So that is where we are. I want to make sure we understand that. Over 30,000 companies use employee involvement programs. The TEAM Act addresses the concern that the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB, will discourage future efforts at labor-management cooperation. Specifically in the Electromation decision, the NLRB held that the 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. 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. No one disagrees with that. The TEAM Act is a direct recognition that the world of work has changed since the 1930's. In that era, many American businesses believed that success could be achieved without involving workers' minds along with their bodies. In those days, with the kind of work that was there, that is probably true. But 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. In fact, the language of the bill that I read earlier specifically prohibits this result. The legislation allows employers and employees to meet together to address issues of mutual concern, including issues related 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 modify collective bargaining agreements. That is all it does. Mr. President, the essence of the matter is that the definition of 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, section 8(a)(2) comes into play. The question becomes whether the employer has done anything to dominate or support that labor organization. Such domination and support can be as little as providing meeting rooms or pencils and paper for the discussions. This is simply too fine a line to ask employers to walk successfully. We want to clear that line up to make it absolutely clear that things everyone would agree are sensible, logical and appropriate can go forward without having the NLRB stop in and say, ``No.'' Earlier, I heard Senator Kennedy state that upward of 80 percent of American companies are engaging in some form of teamwork or other cooperative workplace programs. Fine. His conclusion is that all this activity is going on out there now without a change in the law, so there is no need to change the law. What that argument misses is the fact, as I have said, that much of this activity is a technical violation of existing law. While these programs may be doing wonders for the productivity of the company where they are employed, any one of them is no more than a phone call away from running afoul of the NLRA. What we have to remember is that the NLRA is very specific in all of the decisions, some 70 of them, where all these kinds of borderline cooperative activities are illegal and the defense of an employer is very fragile. It is no defense to an unfair labor practice charge that the program is working, that working conditions and productivity have improved and the company's bottom line has risen. None of this matters if it is a technical violation of the antiquated rule. The NLRB will shut down the team, fine the company and force it to sign papers swearing it will never do it again. The TEAM Act will prevent continuation of these absurd results so detrimental to the national interest. I recently was visited by a workplace team from my own State of Vermont. I am certain that many of my colleagues in the Senate have had similar visits, since there are successful teams operating all over the country. The workers who visited me were from IBM, the computer- chipmaking facility in Burlington, VT. The more traditional top-down management style still prevails on most shifts and in most departments at their 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, meaning ``We, Not I.'' In other words, the workers and the company would work together toward common goals. Wenoti was their group. That name is a combination, as I said, of the words ``We, Not I'' to symbolize their focus on what is good for all and not just 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 met. 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 in relation to their ability to contribute meaningfully to the successful completion of their job. That is what this is all about. For God's sake, what is wrong with it? How can anybody argue that fostering this progress is not good for the country? IBM is a profitmaking organization. It is not promoting employee involvement solely out of altruism. 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 greater satisfaction with their jobs. 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 must take a dim view of American workers as well. 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 the product, productivity and their working environment. I think workers are smart, and I think that is exactly why employers are trying to harness their brains in the workplace as well as their backs. The real problem for unions is that 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 and competition, not from static responses to a changing environment. This is clearly the trend of the future. Yesterday, I spent some time before my colleagues going back into the history and pointing out that I thought it was ironic--if you can just get the unions to sit down and look at what has happened in the last 40 years--that it was back 40 years ago when the leaders in academia and others who had studied business and were looking toward the future and wondered what could be done to ensure that we improve productivity in this Nation. They came up with concepts that said if we could get workers and business to work together so that there is productivity and then profit, and then that profit can be split, everybody gains, everybody benefits. All sorts of suggestions were made. I went through them yesterday. What about dividends to the employees in terms of stock profit-sharing or stock options or even going so far as to put a member of the union or the workers' representative on the board of directors? What happened in this country? Little or nothing. A few companies like Donnelly, which I mentioned before, took it to heart and were very successful, but the majority of ours did not. What happened overseas? The Japanese, the Germans, and others looked at these and said, ``Hey, good idea.'' The ironic part is, their unions, having adopted that philosophy, are now stronger and much more dominant in their industries than ours are. So why would the unions in this country want to continue to do what created, in my mind, their failures? And that is, not to recognize that much more gets done by working with management with an eye toward improving productivity. Mr. President, if you really want to understand better what is going on, Hedrick Smith, who I am sure many of my colleagues know, is a Pulitzer Prize winner and author of ``The Power Game'' and ``The Russians,'' wrote a tremendous book. It is ``Rethinking America: A New Game Plan for American Innovators, School, Business People and Work.'' It really outlines the serious problems we have in this Nation. It outlines those problems which are giving us trouble now. On education, Hedrick, as he traveled all over the world going to education centers, going to schools and examining what is going on in Japan and what is going on in Europe and what is going on in this country, finds that we have been placed way back in our ability to compete in our educational system. I will not dwell on it today. I dwelled on it before. That is a very critical part. What they learned is, you have to start cooperation of people in the schools. In Japan, for instance, they learn right from day one that everyone works together. In the grade schools, everybody works to make sure everybody reads, right on through. Then they also realized--this is true in Europe also--that the time for business to get involved, the time for business to get involved in education, is not after a kid graduates from high school, but, rather, when they are in high school or middle school. So they designed programs for skill training where businesses come in and they are held just to dramatize how the different systems are. In this country, our businesses spend $200 billion a year--$200 billion a year--in the training and retraining of the kids that graduate from high school in our work force. The Europeans --and that is just Europeans--spend the same amount of money, $200 billion. You know where they spend it? In high school and middle school, so when the kids graduate from high school they are already a trained work force. Our schools have failed to recognize the importance of that. We have to change that. We are beginning to change that. I was in Mississippi this past weekend, and the area has had a very difficult time with their education. But they have learned from it. They are now revitalizing their schools and their whole vocational-educational programs to model them after what is going on in Europe and Japan. The rest of the country has to do the same thing. Hedrick Smith spent a lot of time putting this together. He went, articulately, through and documents exactly what happens. But for relevance today, he goes through what happened in the businesses in Europe and the businesses in Asia after the 1950's when our academia and some business leaders recognized that the wave of the future, due to all the technology changes and all, was to make sure we had a qualified work force that was available and ready to work but, most important, that when they were working, with all the kinds of technology changes and the complications of the industrial structures now, that the workers are the best ones to know when the quality is going down or what to do to improve the quality of your goods and services. So they worked with them. And, lo and behold, we had to learn that. There are wonderful stories about how Motorola got involved in understanding this and how they went through and realized that if they did not improve the skills of their workers and did not work together and get them to help them out, they could not compete in Japan. So they changed their whole operation, and they were able to keep jobs here instead of losing them. Senator Kennedy talked about--maybe it was the minority leader--about the huge expansion of the profits in our corporations, but if you examine those profits, you will find that most of those profits are coming from overseas ventures. We should be keeping those ventures here. But we cannot do that if we do not improve our education but also, as importantly, if we do not have the TEAM Act to allow the workers to work with the employers, to improve productivity, to understand what is going on on the assembly line, to correct the problems which are creating goods that are not saleable before they become that. That is the lesson that we have to learn in this country. It is productivity that is the issue here. Is this Nation going to be as productive as it can and must be in order to endure as a leader in economics in this next century? We are about there now. We established sometime ago--in 1983, we took a look at our educational system and said, ``Hey, yeah, you're right. We have to improve it. The present system isn't going to work.'' We have not entirely touched on improving it. So we have to do that. Also, essentially, at that time, especially with auto workers, there is another example, and I would hate to see it kind of reverting back. The UAW recognized that they had to change their ways when they saw the flood of cars coming in, much higher quality from Japan and Europe, and demolishing their markets. So they finally said, ``Oh, boy, we've got to change our ways.'' So they sat down, and, working with management, they improved their productivity, improved their quality and got together. And we were able to change things to meet the markets. We have to be ready to do that or we are going to be driven out. The future of this Nation depends upon our ability to compete in the world markets. There is fantastic opportunity out there, but we cannot be dragged down by old concepts from the 1930's on what worker-management relationships should be. We have to look to the future. The TEAM Act is a leading tool to do that. It will clarify the law. It will legitimize about 30,000 teams that are out there, which are in jeopardy right now if we do not change the law. So I urge all of my colleagues to please support the TEAM Act. As I said earlier, I support all of these issues that we are facing. I have no bias one way or the other. I am looking objectively at these things and think we should pick and choose those. And, finally, I would thank my colleagues for their time and would hope everyone would get down to the real issues here and not try to get tied up with the emotionalism and rhetoric. Mr. President, I yield floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am not clear as to what all the discussion was on the floor at that time, so I will have to let the record speak for itself in that regard.

Mr. JEFFORDS. For a question.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have listened intently to the impassioned pleas of my good friend from Massachusetts, with whom I have served either across the bodies here in the House and Senate or across the aisle in the Senate for 22 years now. He is articulate. He believes strongly in his issues. I would like to, however, try to get us back to the issues as I see them and as I believe they are before us in this body. Few of my colleagues in the Senate support all three of the measures that are before us today. I am one of those. I support repeal of the gas tax because it does not go where it ought to go--into infrastructure repairs which would benefit the users. I support increasing the minimum wage because I believe it is due time that it be increased to reflect the reality of the wages and cost of living in our country. And I am an original cosponsor and a strong supporter of the TEAM Act because I believe we are here talking about not the issues which have been raised by my good friend from Massachusetts but, rather, about improving productivity and working together to straighten out some provisions of the law which have created havoc with respect to businesses working in a friendly relationship with employees in order to improve productivity. That is the issue which we have before us. It is a volatile issue because the unions sense that this will somehow inhibit them from being able to organize and represent workers. However, they are wrong. The bill does not apply if there is a union present. We have also in the act before us, S. 295, specifically stated that it will not interfere with union operations or interfere with the desires of a union. Let me just read those words, and then I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona. What we do is we modify the provision of the law which does define these matters, and we add these words. First of all, we do not change in any way section 8(a)(5), which defines the employer obligation to bargain collectively with the union that is the certified representative of the employees. We do change section 8(a)(2) because of the ambiguities inherent in the act. There are some 70 cases now which have tried to define the line as to whether or not discussions by employer-employee work teams or other cooperative groups are infringing upon workers' rights to only be represented by a union. But there is no clarity on this issue. We add these words. They can discuss matters of mutual interest, including issues of quality, productivity and efficiency, and then it adds: And which does not have, claim or seek authority to negotiate or enter into collective bargaining agreements under this act with the employer or to amend existing collective bargaining agreements between the employer and any labor organization. That just clarifies it. What you have now is they say, well, why bother, because you have thousands and thousands of these teams out there, but every one of them, if you take a look at those 70 cases which cut one way or another, what you have is 70 areas of confusion, leaving employers in a position to have an action brought before the National Labor Relations Board where they can get a cease-and-desist order and demolish the team, they can be fined. So this is just an attempt to make sure that what ought to be done can be done and there should be no disagreement about it. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield for a question only. I am trying to get back on the discussion.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I certainly do desire to speak. I, first of all, commend my good friend from Missouri for a very articulate and well-stated position on the TEAM Act. I would like to provide some different perspectives, both historical and with respect to the minimum wage, at some point. I will be happy to proceed now or as soon as the Senator from Missouri is through.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to pursue TEAM Act. I must say, it is difficult for me, from analyzing the circumstances which brought about TEAM Act, to understand why anyone would disagree with going back to what everybody presumed the law to be. First of all, let me make it clear, I am in favor of the minimum wage. I am one of those Republicans who is in favor of the minimum wage. So the minimum wage and TEAM Act are not linked, other than from perhaps some political aspect. But to me, the TEAM Act is essential in order to continue the increasing productivity of this Nation. But my colleagues better understand the TEAM Act and how it came about and why we are in this difficulty. Let me take you back 40 years. Forty years ago, I was a senior at Yale University, and I was a student studying industrial management, industrial administration. At that time, we were studying what ought to occur for the future to improve productivity and to build an industrial might in this Nation which would allow us to proceed with the greatest possible benefit to workers and to management. It was an interesting time and there was a great debate going on in our Nation as to what we should do as we moved into the future. It was also an interesting time, of course, because we had a certain man called Joseph McCarthy in this Senate who was very concerned about communism and anything that smacked of communism seemed to be sort of in ill repute. Thus, when you started talking about workers getting together with management and those kind of things, it raised some concern with some people. It also was a time when the unions were trying to organize and become more forceful and protect the rights of workers. But those in the academia were discussing the philosophies of the two systems and how we could better get together, workers and management, working together in American society to bring about higher productivity and to bring about better rewards to the workers. So we discussed the many things which, at that time, were very innovative and novel and hardly discussed before. I wrote my senior thesis on how we could try to improve the productivity of workers and the workers' plight in our Nation. I remember at that time writing and discussing about options of profit sharing, profit sharing with stocks, profit sharing period, stock options, and even as far as putting a member of the unions or workers on boards of directors. A considerable amount of effort by the academia went into outlining and defining these. The only problem was, the only ones who were listening were the Japanese, the Germans, and others. So when the Marshall plan came in, along with all of our wealth that we shared in order to bring about the industrial might of those nations in Europe and Asia, the only ones who took the ideas that were expressed by those who were trying to look to the future to try and provide a better lot for workers and higher productivity for industry, were the Japanese, the Germans, and the Europeans. So what we have seen that has occurred over the past 40 years is that in those nations, the concept of the TEAM Act, which we are trying to bring in here again, was incorporated fully; in fact, in Germany, even more so than anywhere else, where you do have members of the workers or the labor unions participating in the boards of directors. What has evolved in Japan, for instance, is an incredible social organization in their school system to teach teamwork, teamwork among all classes, teamwork to bring about the ability to work together. And, thus, you have seen a closer relationship in those nations with the worker and management than you have in this Nation. A decade or so ago when our Nation found itself beginning to be outshone in productivity and in the marketplace because of the incursion of automobiles in this country from Europe and from Asia, which practically wrecked our automobile industry, the kind of skills that are necessary in our industries now, which are far different from what they were in the fifties wherein you spent your time just stamping something or pushing one button or all of the things that were in mass production in those days have evolved into a work force that needs to have technical skills to understand the workings of the machines, the computerization of machines--all of these skills in the mass production procedures. These resulted in those countries, Japan and Malaysia, all of these that had taken this advice of working together and figuring out how to improve productivity--they found that the best providers of improvements in the productivity were the workers themselves; whereas, in this country we just turned around and we kept trying to do quality control. We would bring things back and repair them. The Japanese and Germans learned the best place to stop is when you are in the production line. You find out you are producing too many things that are wrong, you find out what is going wrong and have the workers work with you to find out what is going wrong. So their productivity improved. The number of malfunctions or nonworking pieces produced were reduced substantially by working with the workers. It took us quite awhile to learn that. But now we have learned that. At a time when we now have thousands and thousands of these teams that are working together to improve productivity in this country, to make sure that we can outdo the Japanese, can outdo the Germans--and we have been successful. Yes, we have been successful. There are shining examples of that, Motorola and others, who learned the teamwork process and have now superseded in the markets in Asia in direct competition. We are winning. We are doing it. Now what happens? All of a sudden the NLRB comes out with its decision: ``You cannot do that. No. You formed a union here, and you have got to go through all the election processes or you can't meet.'' What is going to happen? If we do not pass the TEAM Act, thousands of these teams are going to be destroyed. The productivity gains that we have made over the past decade, which have been going on for some 40 years in Europe and Japan, all that we have learned will be destroyed. Why in the world would the unions oppose this? Well, it is simple. They are threatened. They are nervous because they have been going down. They did not want to do anything that would in any way enhance the workers and the management to get together to improve productivity unless they are union people. Well, that may be fine, but that is not the way to do it. You have to prove, through the reasons that you give the workers to join, that they want to form a union; but you should not kill the productivity which is now beginning to come up by throwing all of these--I think the Senator from Missouri mentioned maybe up to 30,000 of these teams that are out there. If we do not do something here, if we do not do it quickly, then all those productivity mechanisms are going to be destroyed. So it boggles my mind to think that anyone can oppose a provision in the law that says, ``Hey, if you want to work, sit down and you can talk about improvements,'' because if there is no improvement, if there is no productivity, there is no profit. If there is no profit, there is nothing to split. So let us get the profit first, and then we will worry about how you bargain or are considered about how to cut the profits up. That is a separate issue all right. That is for the unions. If you get into that kind of discussions, yes, maybe you are getting into unionism. But there is certainly no disagreement with the fact that if there is not a profit, there is not anything to split. So why kill off the mechanisms to provide the profit? So I say that I hope that Members of this body will recognize that the issue being created here is one that is so dangerous to the national productivity right now that, if we did not do something to prove and to improve upon the ability of our workers to interact and to cooperate and to learn the skills necessary to bring about productivity, we will find ourselves in the not-too-distant future of having a situation where we have destroyed the great improvements that we have been making over the last decade in productivity. So I just cannot impress upon my colleagues how important the TEAM Act is. If you do not believe so, talk to your businessmen and talk to the workers in those plants that are not unionized who believe very strongly that the best way to cooperate, to get a profit and to learn how to split the profits is through improving productivity. If we do not pass the TEAM Act, we are about to see that great movement forward in productivity disappear. So I hope our colleagues will support the TEAM Act. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his very articulate and well-expressed opinions here. I am hopeful that when our colleagues listen and understand what we are talking about here, this TEAM Act, we will move through and do what we must do, and that is improve our productivity in this Nation.