Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John F. Guerra, a Pearson fellow on my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the pendency of this legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Pell, and myself which would incorporate the Institute of Museum and Library Services as part of S. 143, the Workforce Development Act of 1995. Libraries have been key players in developing literacy programs and it only makes sense to include the Institute for Museum and Library Services [IMLS] as part of this bill today. The problem of illiteracy is of great concern to me and I believe that we should not pass up this opportunity today to recognize the power and purpose that libraries have in dealing with this problem and finding solutions to it. Libraries have made a positive impact in communities throughout the Nation and have been instrumental in enhancing educational and lifelong learning opportunities. Because of its focus on literacy as well as workforce and economic development, I believe that ensuring that the IMLS is part of the S. 143 is an action which will benefit individuals in all of our States. The Pell/Jeffords amendment today represents a holistic and winning approach to lifelong learning. Mr. President, I am especially pleased that the Artifacts Indemnity Act has been included as part of this amendment. The Indemnity Program, created in 1975, has been an extraordinarily successful program. I believe that there has been only one claim for a very modest amount of money since it first began 20 years ago. Over the years, I have had many opportunities to speak with museum directors who have shared with me their thoughts on the importance of this program along with frustrations regarding the difficulty they have had in getting insurance for their exhibitions to travel throughout the United States, or for bringing some of the great U.S. exhibitions to their region. In response to those conversations, an extension of the indemnity program for domestic exhibitions has been included. We have also moved administration of this program to the Institute of Museums and Library Services, which I believe is a sensible and logical change that will only enhance the program's successes. So again, I would like to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for offering his assistance in crafting this amendment and look forward to its adoption.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think this is a critical time in our history when we examine as we go forward how we are going to take care of the difficult problems facing our society. We are dealing in this bill with people who have difficulty obtaining employment, and at the same time in a related bill we are dealing with individuals who are on welfare. Let me take a look at the overall needs of the Nation in order to emphasize how important it is that we allocate our scarce resources appropriately. There are approximately 90 million people in this Nation who are functionally illiterate. There are also large numbers, millions, who are unemployed. What would be the cost of helping all 90 million achieve literacy? If we dedicated merely $10 per person, it would cost $900 million; or $100 per person, the figure would be $9 billion. However, to be truly effective, a more realistic figure would be $1,000 per person or $90 billion to help those 90 million people achieve literacy. As far as unemployment is concerned, the figures are less specific, but we do know that for every space we have for employment training now, there are 10 people who are unemployed or underemployed who desire that slot. That leaves nine people who desire this training unserved for every one who receives training. The amendment we have before us today will help ensure that we adequately provide literacy services for those who must, at least, overcome this obstacle before entering the work force; this is the essence of adult basic education. The amount of money that we are dealing with in this particular bill is approximately $5 billion. When you remember those figures I gave you on what it would cost to help those 90 million people achieve literacy or the fact that it would probably cost 10 times as much to provide adequate job training for those who require it, you realize how desperate the need is for these funds to be adequately appropriated. With respect to our amendment, my own experience causes me to be concerned that the pressures that are placed on these bills and the kinds of incentives that are placed in these bills will tend to focus resources on employment training at the expense of adult basic education. I say that from my experience, because I have been in either the House or Senate for 21 years now, and I have been involved in all the employment training legislation that has gone on during that period of time. I have watched how these scarce resources were moved in one direction or another. Before I go through that, let us look at what this bill and the welfare bill encourage States and individuals to do. One, we have the social welfare bill. The primary emphasis in this bill is to move people off welfare; that is, the States are rewarded for moving people off welfare. On the other hand, and keep this in mind because it kind of shows what can happen here if we are not careful, there is a provision that could terminate benefits after 2 years. That is an incentive to the individual that says, ``I must get educated, I must get a job or else I lose my benefits.'' My experience tells me that the incentive created to get people off welfare, combined with the incentives we have now in employment training to try and move people off the unemployment rolls and on to the employment rolls will inadvertently result in what is referred to as creaming. That is the emphasis will be to focus the funds on those for whom it is easiest to get off welfare and to get employment. That means, however, those who need the funding and education the most, those who are on welfare now and have been on welfare for many years, will probably have no opportunity to get the education they need because States have responded to incentives to focus resources in other directions. Let me now turn to some charts, first of all, to emphasize what I have been saying. I point to the first chart. I told all of you to remember the article from the business section of the Washington Post that came to the attention of all of us, ``Battling Against Workplace Illiteracy.'' This article emphasized how critical and how important the failure of our country to have provided an adequate education to our people has been to this Nation. I will just read the subtitle: ``Companies Take Action as Awareness Increases of $225 Billion Drag on U.S. Productivity.'' At the same time, as we remind ourselves that we are here to figure out how it is that this Nation can reduce the deficit, it seems very clear, when I look at the next chart, and other charts thereafter, that it is education that is a key to balancing the budget. If we do not improve the education of this Nation, not only will our deficit not get better, but it will get worse. Let us take a look at the total drag on the economy now caused by the failure of our educational system. I tell you, when I see the statistics--I do not know how we got into this. In our schools, 50 percent of the kids who graduate, the ``forgotten half'' as we [[Page S 14853]] are prone to refer to them now, graduate from high school functionally illiterate. That is a big part of how we got to where we are. Let us take a look at this next chart, which indicates over half a trillion dollars in gross domestic product is lost each year because we have failed to educate our people properly. The $225 billion I mentioned earlier is in this piece of the pie, which is green, $225 billion for the cost of illiteracy to the marketplace. That is the inability of people to handle a job they ought to be able to handle has created a drag on our business to such a degree that we lose about $225 billion of productivity annually. Now let us get to the relevance of the two bills I have referred to today. First of all, take a look at $208 billion for welfare expenditures. That means that the individuals that are on welfare, as against not being on welfare and in the employment sector, costs us $208 billion. You see there is some double counting in here, obviously, because we are already up to $433 billion, and we still have another factor to go. The other factor is for training of employees. The businesses in this Nation are required to spend $200 billion a year on either skill training or literacy programs. In fact, if you put literacy in there, it goes even higher. That is another burden on our businesses. If you add those up, we are over $600 billion, with some double counting. In addition to that, if you consider what it would save this Nation by having higher revenues because businesses and individuals would be earning more, we lose another $125 billion. My point, and a critical point, is that education is the key to our problems; education is the key to our future. Now let me take a look at the next chart which I think will put things in perspective also. We all say, ``Hey, it's not our State. We are all doing fine. Our kids are getting educated. We don't have a problem.'' Take a look at this chart. Those in green are the best States, and that means about 25 percent of their adults are functionally illiterate. Most of the States are even worse. Most of them are in the orange and red. Thirty to fifty percent of the adults in these States are functionally illiterate. The final category contains a large portion of the population and a lot of States. These States are shown in blue and have populations in which 50 percent or more of the adults are functionally illiterate. What a staggering indication that our country is in trouble. The final chart will show you the relevance of illiteracy to the welfare problem. This one is very critical, and I think everyone should be aware of what we are talking about. The percentage of welfare recipients who have less than a high school diploma: Of those on welfare more than 5 years, almost 70 percent have less than a high school diploma. Of those on welfare 2 to 5 years, over 40 percent did not get a high school diploma. And of those who have less than 2 years on welfare, 30 percent. What does that mean? It means that if we do not provide basic adult education, then there is no hope that those who have been on welfare more than 5 years are going to have an opportunity to get off welfare and to be able to be taxpaying citizens of this country. I point out that what this means is that the way the incentives are built into this bill--and that is to try and enable people to move from unemployment to employment and to reduce the welfare rolls--all the emphasis will be placed upon this group right here, those that are on welfare less than 2 years. They are the ones more likely to be able to be employed, more likely to get off the unemployment and welfare rolls. And yet, there is little incentive to help those who have been on welfare more than 5 years. Without adult basic education these long- term welfare recipients, more than 60 percent of whom do not have a high school diploma, will not have the opportunity to become employable. In fact, I would guess that the incentives for States in this bill are such that very few long-term welfare recipients will be able to get the kind of education needed to give them any hope of getting off of welfare if we do not have adequate funding for adult education. All this amendment does is to make sure that a minimum of 25 percent of the work force education funds here will be used for adult basic education--education for those on welfare who really need it. I am sure, in my own mind, from my own experience, that if we do not pass this amendment, you are going to see the percentage of funds spent on adult education go down steadily. We will see more and more people suffering and losing their benefits, and we will have to restructure our work force development programs. It has happened before. It happened when we went from CETA to the Job Training Partnership Act. Since then, we have seen that we still did not effectively serve all of the target population. Now, without this amendment, this bill may very well have the exact same result. So I urge you to support this amendment which would ensure the very minimum necessary to help long-term welfare recipients who need the most help get off of welfare and not just help those who need the minimum assistance to get off of welfare. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to clarify where we are here, so people understand a little bit better. First of all, when we talk about education in this bill, we are not just talking about what I was referring to as adult basic education. This is where all your money comes from for the so-called Perkins programs, the vocational education, the other employment money. That 25 percent amounts to a little over $1 billion. What we are saying is, when you take a look, again, at this chart, the bulk of [[Page S 14855]] people on welfare are in the category where they have been on it 2 to 5 years. These are the ones who are supposed to lose their benefits if they do not get adequate education. There is $340 million that would be available for them, plus anyone else in that area, to get the basic adult education. That would be fine, but the demand is about $1.6 billion. All we are saying is, for God's sake, at least make sure they get the $340 million that is indicated when they need $1.6 billion to be able to comply with the purpose of the bill, and welfare, and that is get to work. How can you get work if you do not have an education, if you have no skill training? So we have $1.6 billion that should be out there to get the people off but only $340 million as provided in this bill. All this amendment does is say: At least, at least make sure they have the $340 million. I urge everyone to vote for this amendment just to protect, as best they can, really the small amount of money that is available relative to the great need in this area. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong general support for the Workforce Development Act of 1995. I commend the chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum, for her tireless efforts over the last several years to restructure our vocational education and job training systems. Both the chairman and the ranking Democrat of the committee, Senator Kennedy, have made this subject a focal point of the committee's deliberations. I supported this measure in the Labor Committee, and I continue to support the bill here. Of course, I do not agree with everything contained in the bill. It is a large undertaking and I do have my disagreements with portions of it. Later today I will offer an amendment with Senator Pell to adjust the funding allocation for adult education activities. I may also support one or more of the other amendments that will be offered to the bill. However, I consider myself a strong supporter of this effort, and I heartily commend Senator Kassebaum for her unwavering efforts to make this much needed change a reality. Mr. President, I believe this legislation is very badly needed. Let me briefly explain why I have reached that conclusion. Since the late 1960's, the Federal Government has invested huge sums helping people find employment through participation in a myriad of employment and training programs. From a few limited programs, this effort has now ballooned today into a confusing maze of over 160 separate programs. The administration of these is scattered across 15 separate Federal agencies, with a total cost to the taxpayer of more than $20 billion per year. Not surprisingly, Mr. President, these programs are hamstrung by duplication, waste and conflicting requirements that too often leave program trainees no better off than when they started. I am a great believer in job training, and I count the Job Training Partnership Act among the legislative achievements of my years in Congress. However, the facts that illustrate the problems with our job training system, and which demonstrate the need for wide ranging reform, are not really in dispute. For example, Mr. President, there are more than 60 separate programs targeted at the economically disadvantaged. There are 34 literacy programs designed to help that same group. The system has six different standards for defining income eligibility levels, five for defining family and household income, and five for defining what is included in income. For me, one of the most distressing aspects of this problem is that the system has no effective means of determining whether programs really work. The General Accounting Office has released several reports on this issue, and its findings have not been encouraging. One GAO report studied 62 programs. Of these, fully half had no means of checking whether participants obtained jobs after training. During the past decade, only seven of those programs were ever evaluated to find out whether trainees would have achieved the same outcomes without Federal assistance. At this point, I need to digress for just a moment to speak about one new effort at self-evaluation undertaken this year. The Department of Labor has initiated a longitudinal study aimed at answering the question whether the Job Corps Program improves the employment opportunities and earnings of its participants. I support longitudinal studies and have encouraged their use in connection with job training program evaluation. However, this particular study, which is being directed by Mathematica Policy Research, has a very ugly underbelly that I want to explore a bit today. This study employs a control group methodology. John A. Burghardt, director of the Mathematica project, offered this explanation to me in a September 29 letter responding to my inquiry: The National Job Corps Study is based on a random selection process in which approximately 11 out of 12 eligible applicants are selected to enter Job Corps, and 1 out of 12 eligible applicants is selected for a control group. The control group members are not eligible to enroll in Job Corps for a period of three years (but may do so after three years if they are eligible at that time). What this means is that a kid can go through the Job Corps application process, qualify, be selected for training, and then be told that he or she cannot enroll for 3 years because we want to see him or her sink or swim as compared to the other applicants who were admitted. This ``twist-in-the-wind'' aspect of the study is unconscionable. It may make sense from a social science point of view, but it is inhumane in the extreme. In my State of Vermont, a young man by the name of Donovan De Leon has been caught in the Job Corps study control group. He is heartbroken, and his family is in disbelief that he would be asked to make this sacrifice. In essence, they feel that the authorities are allowing him to fail in order to demonstrate the success that Job Corps can bring about. They have asked me if there is not another way to conduct this study that does not punish the innocent few in this fashion. I have to agree with their view, there must be another way. This has just come to my attention and, with the current parliamentary situation, I may not be able to do anything to address the issue in the context of this bill. However, I will look for a way to take on this study either here or in other legislation. Further, I suspect that many other Senators, who have youngsters like Donovan De Leon in their States, will be of like mind. Another problem proving the need for this legislation, Mr. President, is the confusion that the patchwork of conflicting programs causes. There are no clear entry points and no clear path from one job training program to another. The programs targeted for consolidation have conflicting eligibility criteria. They apply program incentives that are not always compatible with helping individuals find jobs. These program requirements may encourage staff to assist individuals who are the easiest to serve, rather than the most difficult. There is limited coordination across programs. There is no systematic link between educational services and job training services. Providers of employment and training services range from public institutions of higher education to local education agencies; from nonprofit community based organizations to private for-profit corporations. Further, different programs very often target the same client populations. Youth, at-risk youth, veterans, native Americans, the poor and dislocated workers all have many programs designed for their benefit. Not surprisingly, people have difficulty knowing where to begin looking for assistance. As a result, they may go to the wrong agency, or worse, give up altogether. Employers also experience problems with the multitude of employment programs. Employers want a system that is easy to access and that provides qualified job candidates. Instead, they must cope with solicitations from over 50 programs that provide job referral and placement assistance to individuals. Often, employers are not even involved in designing programs that should be responsive to their labor market needs. There is no clear linkage between economic development activities and employment and training programs to help employers meet their labor needs. Training programs are a waste of Federal dollars if employers cannot hire newly trained workers because their skills do not match employer needs. Our principal international competitors do a much better job than we have matching worker training and skills to the needs of their industries and potential employers. The changes initiated in this bill are needed to enable us to compete effectively in the international arena. If employment and training programs are to succeed, a simple, integrated work force development system must be established that gives States, local communities, and employers both the assistance and the incentives to train real workers for real jobs. The Workforce Development Act takes on the challenge of structuring such a system. It will enable all segments of the work force to obtain the skills necessary to earn wages sufficient to maintain a high quality of living. Further, it will insure a skilled [[Page S 14874]] work force that can meet the labor market needs of the businesses of each State. We are at a defining moment in our Nation's history. The United States is still the most productive country in the world. But we are losing our edge to other industrialized nations such as Japan and Germany as well as other rapidly developing countries such as Taiwan, Korea, and China. Our enormous Federal trade deficit is testimony to our deficiencies. Over the past 25 years, the standard of living for those Americans without at least a 4-year postsecondary degree has plunged. This, too, serves as an example of our Nation's declining productivity. In the next decade, we will be surpassed as the world's foremost economic power if we do not begin to redefine our priorities on national, State, and local levels. In response to this problem, education must be a top priority and we must connect education with the workplace. Our international competitors have been leaders in making the important link between education and work. Germany, for example, has long been a model for vocational education. As early as the sixth grade, students opt for a college-prep or vocational education program. In Germany's vocational education system, students receive extensive training in industry through collaborations with business along with pursuit of an academic curriculum. Unfortunately, in the United States, misconceptions about vocational education abound. Some think of voc. ed as a second rate education for students who could not otherwise succeed on a so-called traditional academic path. Nothing, could be further from the truth. Vocational education courses hold appeal for all students. In my home State of Vermont, over 4,500 students participate in vocational education courses, of which 12 percent are adults. Another misconception is that there are few similarities among Federal vocational education and job training programs. In fact, a strong voc. ed program is the best kind of job training and should be viewed as a major step in the lifelong learning process. The Workforce Development Act is a major effort that strongly links education with job training. In addition, it also establishes a very strong linkage between the three levels of government: local, State, and Federal. The bill also calls on the private sector to be a major participant in work force development activities. S. 143, the Workforce Development Act creates a unified system for vocational education and job training programs. The Governor and the State education agency work together with State and local panels to devise a comprehensive vocational education and job training system that will respond to the needs of all those who seek its services. This is already being done in my home state of Vermont through the establishment of work force investment boards. S. 143 will support a strong school-based infrastructure for vocational education of students from all age groups, and the foundation for a strong and competitive work force. The Workforce Development Act emphasizes the important role business must play in devising vocational education and job training strategies. This past spring, the first detailed American business survey was released by the U.S. Department of Education. The study found that ``a 10 percent increase in the educational attainment of a company's work force resulted in an 8.6 percent increase in productivity. Whereas a 10 percent increase in the value of capital stock such as tools, buildings, and machinery only resulted in a 3.4 percent increase in productivity.'' In the book ``Reinventing Education,'' Louis Gerstner, the chairman and CEO of IBM, writes: Business . . . [i]s not only a major stakeholder in the issue of education quality, it is the only potential source of major institutional pressure on the system. Without business pressure to improve the schools there will be no one else to act. And if no one acts, the schools will ultimately fail to change and fail to prepare our students and citizens adequately for the next century. I urge my colleagues to act today and support S. 143, the Workforce Development Act.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Levin, from Michigan; D'Amato, New York; Mrs. Hutchison, Texas; Moynihan, Leahy, Glenn, Pell, Murray, and Rockefeller to offer an amendment to restore funding for Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers, or TAACs as they are called. Our amendment provides that of the $100 million included in the existing bill for the Economic Development Administration, $10 million will be used to fund the 12 regional TAACs at their fiscal year 1995 level. Trade adjustment assistance is authorized by the Trade Act of 1974 to help manufacturers who have lost sales and jobs to imports. Once certified as having been hurt by imports, firms receive cost-shared technical assistance to improve their competitive position. Mr. President, TAACs work. Looking at TAAC clients a clear pattern emerges. In the two years prior to going to a TAAC, a manufacturing firm has seen declining sales and reduced jobs. After receiving TAAC assistance sales go up and employment increases. In a study of TAAC clients from fiscal year 1990-1994, prior to seeking assistance, TAAC clients lost over 10,000 jobs and $630 million in sales. After receiving TAAC assistance, not only had the drop in employment and sales been stemmed, it had been reversed. Fifty-five hundred jobs were added in addition to the 55,000 jobs that were saved, and client sales increased by $1.1 billion. Most importantly, productivity, as measured by sales per employee, was increased significantly from $82,000 to $94,000. Productive firms stay open for business; they continue to employ and hire new people. Mr. President, trade adjustment assistance is a good program. For every dollar spent by the federal government there is an 800 percent return in terms of Government revenue. As I mentioned, there are twelve regional TAACs--Boston, Trenton, Seattle, Boulder, Chicago, Atlanta, Ann Arbor, Binghamton, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Columbia (MO), and Blue Bell, PA. Each of these centers have helped manufacturing firms in every State who have been hurt by imports get back on their feet and remain viable. TAACs save private sector jobs, and, as we all know, the best social program [[Page S 14682]] is a good paying job, and manufacturing jobs are good paying jobs. In my home State of Vermont, the TAAC which serves my region, the New England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (NETAAC) is currently providing or reviewing certification petitions from seven manufacturing firms who combined employ close to 500 people. In a small State like Vermont that is a lot of jobs. The assistance is cost shared by the client and TAAC contribution can be as little as $25,000. The average NETAAC investment is $684 per job. That is an excellent return on federal investment. Mr. President, our amendment simply directs that of the $100 million already in the bill for the Economic Development Administration, $10 million be used for TAACs. We have funded this program in the past and the other body has included funding in its fiscal year 1996 Commerce appropriations bill. I should also note that the Ways and Means Committee recently voted to extend authorization for trade adjustment assistance for 2 more years. TAACs help manufacturing firms that have been hurt by imports. TAAC assistance saves jobs and increases sales. For every dollar we spend on this program, we get eight dollars back. Funding TAACs is a sound investment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to mark the 30th anniversary of the National Endowment for the Arts. Thirty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson initiated a program which gave the government a modest role in bringing the arts and culture to all the people of our great nation. Today, 30 years later, this small investment is being called into question, ignoring that the National Endowment for the Arts has made a substantial contribution to the cultural lives of Americans in all corners of the nation. The NEA has lived up to the purposes for which Congress established, specifically, ``to ensure that the arts and humanities belong to all people of the United States.'' This has been no small achievement, and is one which the Endowment can stake claim to--broadening accessibility and increasing the breadth of participation. For much of our Nation's history, one had to travel to the biggest cities--New York, Chicago, Boston or Los Angeles--to participate and enjoy the best of what the arts had to offer. This is no longer the case. The Endowment has encouraged a real flowering of the arts across the nation and provided the seeds for each community to celebrate its uniqueness and its creativity. While one could not say that the Endowment is the creator of art--certainly the arts would exist and have existed without it--one can safely say it has been a catalyst for ensuring that the very best of the arts are available to even the smallest corner of the nation and to all segments of the population. All across America, millions of children and their families have had the chance to see the great masterpieces of the visual arts, hear the masterworks of American composers, and read the novels and stories and poems of America's great writers. The gift of the Endowment to our Nation is realized by each person, young and old, whose horizon is broadened through dancing and writing, whose self esteem is reinforced through participation in the arts, who is able to communicate through creating. Bringing the magic and wonder of the arts to all of us, is the triumph of the NEA. Mr. President, on this 30th anniversary, I would also like to take a moment to pay tribute to one of the founding fathers of the NEA, the distinguished senior Senator from Rhode Island, Clairborne Pell, who has been a true champion of the arts. He, too, should be recognized on this anniversary for his extraordinary contributions. As a long time supporter of this agency and sponsor of legislation to reauthorize the National Endowment for the Arts in 1995, I am proud to come to the Senate floor and make note of this special day. Now that it appears that the Endowment is secure, I would like to thank all my colleagues who helped through this difficult time. We should not allow for controversy to overshadow this agency's great accomplishments. It is my hope that the National Endowment for the Arts will continue to serve the American public will into the next century.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to address one of the most important legislative changes the Congress will be addressing this year--changes in the way we finance and the way senior citizens and persons with disabilities receive Medicare coverage. I wholeheartedly support reducing the Federal deficit, as well as, moving the Government out of the role of running a health plan, for the elderly and disabled, and into the role of contracting with private health plans. I commend Chairman Roth and the Finance Committee for its commitment to these very important goals. Having studied the health care system in the United States for many years I have come to the conclusion that 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 and 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. 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 and increasing costs to beneficiaries, is a major reason why our Federal deficit is so exorbitant. I hope that in our efforts to reduce the deficit, we have not set ourselves up to cut too deeply into the Medicare payment system. Many technical changes have been suggested by the Finance Committee to the reimbursement policies for hospitals and providers. Some of these changes have allocated additional funding to rural areas. I look forward to discussing the total cost impact on Vermont with both the hospital association as well as other provider groups in Vermont, as well as with my colleagues on the Finance Committee. Second, by segregating the elderly and disabled, into separate risk pools, the Government has become responsible for providing health insurance for the riskiest members of society. This segmentation has not provided any incentives for the private sector to find innovative ways to manage the highest cost cases in the delivery system. Unfortunately, it was the private market's failure to provide affordable coverage on reasonable terms, to the elderly and disabled, that led to the political demand for the Government to create Medicare and Medicaid in the first place. Providing Medicare beneficiaries a choice of private health plans is a wonderful idea and one that I have been advocating. Hopefully, the impact will not be the same as the greatest criticism against the Federal employee plan. One experience with this program has found adverse selection among plans--that is the people that need the most care seem to migrate to the high option Blue Cross fee-for-service plan--creating an upward cost spiral for members of this plan. Now I'd like to turn to the two charts I have here. The first chart was duplicated from hearings on the Eisenhower administration's health reinsurance legislation back in 1954. This was before we had Medicare and Medicaid. As you can see, 41 percent of the population had no insurance protection at all and 36 percent of the population had what I would call limited coverage. More startling only 3 percent of the population has what most Americans take for granted today-- comprehensive coverage. Compare this chart with my second chart which does not emphasize the type of coverage but the source of coverage. Over 55 percent of Americans in 1993 had coverage provided through their employer. As you can see, 15 percent of the population is uninsured--compared to 41 percent in 1953. Medicare is the primary insurance for 12 percent of the population and 9 percent of the population receives coverage through Medicaid. 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 last year-- the goal of moving towards 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 [[Page S 14772]] these programs. More uninsured Americans will only increase total costs to the health care system. We must keep in mind that Medicare and Medicaid were created because proper incentives were never placed in the private market to enable it to accept the risks associated with insuring the elderly and disabled. As we encourage the Medicare population to move into private health plans we must be sure to do what President Eisenhower tried to do over 40 years ago--we must be sure to place the proper incentives in the private market that will encourage it to compete for the chronically ill high cost population on quality and price. As we move to a system in which we offer Medicare beneficiaries throughout the country greater choice and coordinated care, we must not forget to address the following concerns. First, what types of choices will be available for rural and underserved areas which have little or no penetration of the private managed care marketplace? Second, how can we provide coordinated care for beneficiaries who decide to stay in the current fee-for-service Medicare program? Third, how can we address the bifurcated finances and benefits offered to the aged and disabled population through the Medicare and Medicaid programs? Many rural and underserved areas of this country, like Vermont, which do not have an over abundance of hospitals and other health providers, have not seen the benefits experienced by a mature managed care marketplace such as Minnesota or Washington. I was very pleased to see that the Finance Committee has recommended that the AAPCC be modified to increase the per month payment per Medicare beneficiary in rural area. Hopefully, more managed care plans will decide to start up business in rural parts of this country. But this change will take some time. Market alternative's to managed care health plans have been springing up all over rural America. For example, although Vermont does not have a multitude of managed care health plans operating, providers have been developing networks that offer a continuum of care to Vermonters. Networks that provide acute, home health and residential care. They provide direct medical care, as well as, the personal services needed for individuals to manage their own care needs. This coordination of care is very similar to what Blue Cross of western Pennsylvania is providing its fee-for-service clients through case management. Like Blue Cross, many private sector fee-for-service health plans have begun to provide case management on a voluntary basis to individuals with high-cost conditions, generally chronic or catastrophic care cases. These programs offer greater flexibility in the array of services needed, on a case by case basis, and have proven very cost effective. HCFA has demonstrated that a small proportion of Medicare beneficiaries account for a high proportion of payments. In 1992, about 9.8 percent--3.5 million--of all Medicare enrollees accounted for 68.4 percent--$82.6 billion--of all Medicare payments. The experience for the last 20 years of the program has shown that 80 percent of the beneficiaries account for only 20 percent of the costs of the Medicare program. In the Medicaid program 30 percent of the population, the aged and disabled, accounts for 70 percent of Medicaid expenditures. Furthermore, this is the cost in the Medicaid Program that is growing the fastest. Finding a means to manage high cost cases in these two programs is essential if we are going to reduce costs in both of these programs. To add to the distortion and inefficiencies in providing care for elderly and disabled persons is that many of these people are both Medicare beneficiaries and Medicaid recipients. These people are termed dually eligibles today. This creates numerous clinical, operation, and financial problems, particularly as these two programs are taking extraordinary steps to control spending. In order to access the full range of care that is necessary an individual must deal with two very different systems. The care received by a dually eligible consumer is therefore, often fragmented, reimbursement driven, and inappropriate. Service decisions are routinely made by providers based on which program pays better. This result is not always a care plan that is in the best interest of the consumer or the most cost effective. Because two payors offering distinct yet overlapping benefit packages with different sets of rules are responsible for the same consumer, much confusion exists for all parties. It is often impossible for States to know what service decisions, which ultimately tap Medicaid funding, are being made while the senior citizen is in the Medicare system. Another source of much provider discontent and inefficiency is the dual administration of claims payments. One of the major reasons for this problem is that Medicare and Medicaid claims processing systems are not compatible and Medicare and Medicaid payment policies differ. The result is needless inefficiencies and expense. As attempts to control Medicare spending and to block grant Medicaid move forward, the problem of dual eligibles becomes an obstacle to achieve both goals. Medicare cannot control the cost of this population unless Medicaid funded services are used to lower Medicare's acute care costs. Medicaid cannot manage and coordinate the care of the elderly and disabled unless it is given responsibility for the full continuum of care. One answer is a case managed system for the dual eligibles which merges Medicare and Medicaid coverage and is administered by the States on Medicare's behalf. This would be a thoughtful approach in addressing the highest cost cases in both programs by replacing the fragmented, costly and inefficient system of today with an integrated, managed care approach designed to keep people healthier and lower costs for both public programs. I have been working with Senators Kassebaum, Cohen and Chafee on this very key issue as we look forward to restructuring our public programs. Once we have created a delivery system that provides high quality, appropriate, cost effective care for the people who need the system the most--we will have restructured a health care system that works for all Americans. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in a thoughtful debate on how to modify both Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I submit a resolution to authorize the use of the Capitol Grounds for D.C. StandDown '95. D.C. StandDown '95 will involve over 500 staffers and volunteers from public and private sector organizations, including the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the United States Naval Medical Center, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. D.C. StandDown '95 will provide hundreds of homeless veterans with food, clothing, medical attention, legal counseling, mental health treatment and job counseling. Because the District of Columbia has the highest number of homeless veterans per capita in the Nation, authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for D.C. StandDown '95 is essential. Veterans' standdowns have proven to be the best way to address the unique needs of veterans and to reach veterans who rarely take advantage of the services they are entitled to. Standdowns have grown in popularity around the country. Over 25,000 homeless veterans have been served in previous standdowns, and I am pleased that passage of my resolution will aid another 350 homeless veterans who seek physical, mental, and employment counseling assistance. My resolution will permit the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans to host the event on the Upper Senate Park portion of the Capitol Grounds between October 23, 1995, and October 30, 1995. The coalition will be responsible for all expenses and liabilities related to the event. Any effort to erect a stage, sound system or any other structure would need to be approved by the Architect of the Capitol. Finally, the coalition can not characterize passage of this resolution as constituting an endorsement by the Federal Government. I am pleased that Representative Joseph Kennedy feels as strong as I do about the effectiveness and necessary of veterans' standdowns, as he has agreed to introduce a companion resolution in the House of Representatives. We as a Nation must continue to provide assistance to homeless veterans and foster their eventual return to healthy, self- sufficient and productive lives. I believe that D.C. StandDown '95 will contribute to this return.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I reintroduce a bill to change current law that requires amounts paid to a member of the Armed Forces under the Special Separation Benefits and Voluntary Separation Incentive Programs be offset from amounts subsequently paid to that individual by the Department of Veterans Affairs as disability compensation. Since the end of the cold war, our country has called on military personnel to participate in several dangerous military operations, most recently in the Persian Gulf, Somalia, and Haiti. These personnel have served our country well. Unfortunately, due to language in the Department of Defense [DOD] Authorization Act for fiscal years 1992 and 1993, veterans who participate in the Department of Defense's downsizing by selecting one of two options, either a special separation bonus [SSB] lump sum payment or a voluntary separation incentive [VSI] monthly payment, are prevented from receiving both disability compensation from the VA and benefits from the SSB and VSI programs until the separation compensation is offset completely. My bill will address this injustice by repealing these provisions and allow for concurrent receipt. It will also be retroactive to December 5, 1991, so service members not able to receive payment concurrently since 1991 will be reimbursed for their lost compensation. Mr. President, SSB and VSI benefits are for services rendered as well as compensation for the veterans' participation in the DOD's downsizing. VA disability pay is compensation for mental or physical disabilities incurred in that service. These are two separate compensations serving two very different purposes. Therefore, it is unfair to the veteran to offset one payment with another. Aside from the unfairness of offsetting the costs of unrelated compensation benefits, many veterans who returned from the Persian Gulf war have come down with strange illnesses which are believed to be related to their service in the Persian Gulf. Individuals who have accepted SSB or VSI payments are suffering both physically and financially, as many cannot work under the conditions from which they are suffering. Repealing the offset will help ease this financial suffering. I urge the Congress to correct this injustice to our Nation's veterans and provide these veterans with the proper care and compensation they deserve.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I reintroduce a bill to change current law that requires amounts paid to a member of the Armed Forces under the Special Separation Benefits and Voluntary Separation Incentive Programs be offset from amounts subsequently paid to that individual by the Department of Veterans Affairs as disability compensation. Since the end of the cold war, our country has called on military personnel to participate in several dangerous military operations, most recently in the Persian Gulf, Somalia, and Haiti. These personnel have served our country well. Unfortunately, due to language in the Department of Defense [DOD] Authorization Act for fiscal years 1992 and 1993, veterans who participate in the Department of Defense's downsizing by selecting one of two options, either a special separation bonus [SSB] lump sum payment or a voluntary separation incentive [VSI] monthly payment, are prevented from receiving both disability compensation from the VA and benefits from the SSB and VSI programs until the separation compensation is offset completely. My bill will address this injustice by repealing these provisions and allow for concurrent receipt. It will also be retroactive to December 5, 1991, so service members not able to receive payment concurrently since 1991 will be reimbursed for their lost compensation. Mr. President, SSB and VSI benefits are for services rendered as well as compensation for the veterans' participation in the DOD's downsizing. VA disability pay is compensation for mental or physical disabilities incurred in that service. These are two separate compensations serving two very different purposes. Therefore, it is unfair to the veteran to offset one payment with another. Aside from the unfairness of offsetting the costs of unrelated compensation benefits, many veterans who returned from the Persian Gulf war have come down with strange illnesses which are believed to be related to their service in the Persian Gulf. Individuals who have accepted SSB or VSI payments are suffering both physically and financially, as many cannot work under the conditions from which they are suffering. Repealing the offset will help ease this financial suffering. I urge the Congress to correct this injustice to our Nation's veterans and provide these veterans with the proper care and compensation they deserve.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the amendment I offered yesterday will restore the EPA Administrator's ability to fulfill our obligations under the Montreal Protocol. In addition, it will authorize the EPA Administrator to fund the successful Green programs, including the Green Lights Program and Energy Star Buildings Programs. I need not go into detail on the importance of the Montreal Protocol. Last year, the Congress appropriated $119 million for these important programs--$101 million for the Green programs and roughly $17 million for the Montreal Protocol multilateral fund. This amendment will allow the Administrator to spend up to $100 million on these programs, a 13- percent cut from last years levels. Negotiated and signed by President Reagan and expanded and implemented by President Bush, the Montreal Protocol is working to reduce the production and use of ozone-depleting substances. President Reagan believed it was vital that we fulfill our commitments under this important treaty. President Bush took a leadership position and urged the rest of the world to agree to a complete phase out of a number of ozone depleting substances. President Bush also concluded the negotiations, begun by President Reagan, to establish the multilateral fund. Now, let me explain the fund, because this is what we are debating today. The multilateral fund was created in 1990 in order to assist developing countries in their efforts to phaseout ozone depleters. Since the development of the fund, 100 developing countries have ratified the protocol and agreed to the protocol's strict reduction requirements. They did this with the understanding that the fund would assist these developing countries in transferring the technology necessary to end this use of ozone-depleting substances. Most of this technology comes from the United States. Failure to pay our share of the fund would force developing countries to end their protocol obligations. This would lead to increased use of ozone-depleting substances in developing countries and offset the tens of billions of dollars spent by the developed countries to phase them out. Let me summarize. No money to the fund. Violation of our commitment to the treaty. Greater use of CFC's by developing countries. Faster depletion rates of the ozone. More negative health effects, such as skin cancer and cataracts. We must maintain our commitment to protect the ozone layer. My colleagues may argue that funds for the Montreal protocol belong in the State Department budget, not the EPA budget. As a member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, I am continuing to work to ensure that the protocol has adequately funded the State Department budget. However, I believe that funding for international programs is so limited, that offsetting the loss in this bill would be impossible. Since 1991, almost one-third of the money for the fund has come from EPA. We made the decision, in 1990, to require EPA to assist the State Department. Let me read from section 617b of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which many of us here today voted for. Quote: The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall support global participation in the Montreal protocol by providing technical and financial assistance to developing countries. And at that time we authorized $30 million to be spent for the fund. The phaseout of CFC's is not just an international political issue, it is a technical, industrial, and environmental issue, on which EPA is respected globally. Further, through its experience in the United States of ridding the country of ozone-depleting substances, EPA has a good understanding of the benefits of U.S. technologies, and has been able to promote those technologies in other countries. This is no time to end this progress. Let me spend a minute on the Green Lights Program. I remember President Bush searching for alternatives to the overregulation, command and control policies of the 1970's and 1980's. He longed to find a way to control pollution in a nonregulatory, free-market manner. His legacy to the environment is his success in developing just such a program. The Green Lights Program, and Energy Star Programs, are a testament to the type of innovative programs we must implement if we wish to reduce the regulatory burden faced by industry today. The programs are voluntary, reduce energy use, decrease our dependence on foreign energy, save business money, and stimulate markets for clean, alternative energy technologies and services. Green Lights is simple. EPA provides technical assistance to help a company survey its facilities and upgrade its lighting. That's it. Since its inception, Green Lights has saved companies hundreds of millions of dollars and dramatically reduced air pollution emissions. All this without one regulation. This is the most successful public-private partnership running. Just ask companies in my own State, such as IBM, our largest utility--Green Mountain Power, Jay Peak Ski area, and others. Ask the Mobile Corp., who points out in this article in Time magazine that with the help of EPA Green Lights they have reduced their lighting energy costs by 49 percent. Eliminating this program now would be unwise. This program reduces the need for regulation. Without Green Lights we might need more regulation to accomplish what is now being done with a voluntary partnership. I believe one of the reasons this program is slated for elimination is that it is considered corporate welfare. Let me tell you why it is not. EPA does not give any grants or financial assistance to Green Lights partners. All funds are spent for information dissemination and communication. The resulting investment by participants is more than 50 times the Federal investment. Green Lights participants represent a wide range of entities, including 360 schools, 193 hospitals, numerous churches, local governments, small businesses, and nonprofit groups. Overcoming market barriers is valuable to many, but beyond the reach of individual organizations. Many businesses cannot afford to keep on hand the technical expertise that EPA has assembled to help business succeed in reducing their energy costs in this manner. Green Lights is a successful public-private partnership. It creates jobs and opportunities for sound energy use and savings, while at the same time preventing pollution. This is a model, nonregulatory program. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the consequences of ending these two vital programs. My amendment does not increase spending, nor does it cut from other areas of the bill. The amendment simply requests that the EPA Administrator be allowed to spend, within available funds, enough funds to keep these important programs up and running.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, may I engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee and the distinguished Senator from Louisiana regarding programs at the Environmental Protection Agency that result in improved energy efficiency in the economy?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Would the Senator be open to requesting a report from the EPA and from the Department of Energy to the Congress addressing how their programs that promote improved energy efficiency or that result in an energy supply that has less of a possibility of contributing to global climate change relate to one another and to the existing statutory authorities in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and elsewhere?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Of course, improving energy efficiency may be one way to prevent pollution, and Congress has authorized EPA to pursue pollution prevention activities in the Clean Air Act and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Do you intend that any activity in the EPA that related to energy efficiency would, by that very fact, be transferred to the Department of Energy?

Mr. JEFFORDS. The report language states that: The Committee notes that these programs overlap and conflict with statutory authority provided to the Department of Energy in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Therefore, EPA should transfer to DOE those energy efficiency and energy supply programs that DOE, not EPA, is authorized to carry out. Future appropriations for these programs should be requested as part of the DOE budget submission. What is intended by this language?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have no further requests to be heard from any of the Members I am aware of.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as a cosponsor Senator Cohen, Senator Lugar and Senator Wellstone.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will not take very long, and I want to thank the managers of the bill for agreeing to an amendment to our original proposal, which makes good sense and which I think improves the amendment. I appreciate their cooperation. I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Chafee, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Simon, Mr. Biden, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bumpers, and Mr. Leahy. What this amendment does is to restore the EPA Administrator's ability to fulfill our obligations under the Montreal Protocol. In addition, it will authorize the EPA Administrator to fund the successful green programs, including Green Lights and Energy Stars Building Programs. The net effect, actually, of this amendment as far as present spending will actually decrease because it will raise by fee some revenues to assist in the second program that I mentioned. I need not go into detail on the importance of the Montreal Protocol. Last year, the Congress appropriated $119 million for these important programs--$101 million for the green programs and roughly $17 million for the Montreal Protocol multilateral fund. This amendment will allow the Administrator to spend up to $100 million on these programs, actually a 13 percent decrease from last year's levels. Again, it is authorization to spend. It is not a specific authority for those programs. That will be up to the administrator. I will not go into detail on this. I do not want to take the time of our Members here for this. I will summarize now the green programs. There is no money for the green programs. I remember President Bush searching for alternatives to overregulation, command and control policies of the 1970's and 1985's. He longed to find a way to control production in a nonregulatory free market manner. His legacy through the environment is his success in developing just such a program which we are referring to this evening. The Green Lights Program and Energy Stars Program are a testament to the type of innovative programs we must implement if we wish to reduce the regulatory burden faced by industry today. The programs are volunteer, reduce energy use, save business money, and stimulate markets for clean alternative energy technologies and services. What more could you ask for? Green Lights is simple. EPA provides technical assistance to help a company survey its facilities and upgrade its lighting. Since its inception, Green Lights has saved companies hundreds of millions of dollars and dramatically reduced air pollution emissions, all without one regulation. I have to my left here a chart which shows--how often do you get to the cover of Time Magazine? This is an important public-private partnership. Just ask companies in my own State like IBM, our largest utility--Green Mountain Power, Jay Peak Ski Area, and many others, including small businesses. Now I had several Members that wanted to speak but due to the gracious acceptance of this amendment by the managers, I will yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, which restores $425 million to the Corporation for National Service. Two years ago, I was very proud to be a lead Republican sponsor of the National Community Service Trust Act. My support for this endeavor comes from a long-held belief that national and community service is essential in addressing many of our unmet social and educational needs. Community service is the cornerstone of democracy, where those who have much have a responsibility to help those who have little. Providing public service as a means of training individuals, while at the same time supplying benefits to a community, is a win-win initiative. It is interesting to note that the critics of national service have never criticized the goals of the program. They focus their criticism on the cost of national service activities with figures which are highly debatable, but not the worthiness of the efforts. I beg to differ with those who say we do not have the dollars for national service activities. We do have the resources to devote to this worthy effort. For example, since 1980, we have downsized our military enrollees by 184,790, representing 54 percent drop. The savings generated from curtailing new recruits by 184,000 is close to $2.7 billion per year, much more than we spend on this program. And yet we have reduced the opportunity to 184,790 individuals each year, who otherwise would get help from the Federal Government to assist them in learning skills and being able to participate in a more meaningful way in our society. All we are doing with this amendment is taking a small proportion of those who now no longer have that opportunity, approximately 20,000, and give them the chance to take part in this program. Although we are downsizing our military, many young people still have the desire to become involved in public service. We are not providing them an opportunity to contribute if we do away with national service. National service enables not only young people but schools, community organizations, towns and cities to develop programs that will meet their own unmet needs while giving invaluable education to generations of our future leaders. I point out that those 184,000 no longer in the military would have had an opportunity to get the same kind of scholarship they could get with national service through the military. Now due to downsizing of our Armed Forces, that opportunity is no longer available to them. So the elimination of national service will effectively remove another avenue for a large number of young people to obtain educational opportunities. Let us remember that national and community service is not a program that young people engage in because they are free for the summer or because they have nothing better to do. Participation in service requires true commitment. This is a program that demands that youth spend at least 1 year in full service, or 2 years in part-time service in an area of national need. Although we all support spending cuts, this does not mean we should forsake our responsibility to develop necessary Government programs, especially those that help our young people. We must commit ourselves to redirecting our priorities to make clear that unless we address the concerns of this Nation, our children will not have a future. National service is a cost-effective program that is meeting many urgent local and national needs not being met through traditional means. An example of the program's cost-effectiveness is an AmeriCorps project in New York. For each hour that AmeriCorps members update computer equipment, they save the New York City Board of Education $100 in labor costs. Through a combination of hard work and commitment, National service has surpassed the expectations we all had when this legislation was enacted almost 2 years ago. National service was not designed to result in miracles on a grand scale, but there are many examples of minor miracles occurring daily throughout the United States. Some of these examples include, Youth Conservation Corps participants who have assisted Midwestern families afflicted by this spring's floods, the Teach for America participant who not only taught children in Watts how to read, but also how to love, and the Battleboro, VT, Independent Living project participants who assist the elderly and individuals with disabilities so they can remain in their homes instead of being forced to live in an institutional setting. National service is a program that has served our Nation well, and therefore I rise today to lend my voice in supporting the Mikulski amendment.