Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Roth for his work on this important legislation. This Monday, May 1, residents of my State will celebrate the introduction of a revitalized passenger rail link to Vermont. This new service, called the Vermonter, will replace the Montrealer, which previously ran from Washington to Montreal. As Amtrak moved to restructure America's national passenger rail corporation this past winter, they indicated that train service across the country would be scaled back. The proposal called for the elimination of the New England. In an effort to maintain rail service to our region, Senator Leahy and I, along with the State of Vermont, held extensive negotiations with Amtrak. The result is the Vermonter. This new train will operate from Springfield, MA, to St. Albans, VT. This daytime service will allow visitors from across the country to conveniently visit our State and allow residents of northern New England to access the national passenger rail system. Continuation of this rail service would not have been possible without the financial support from the State of Vermont. In fact, the Vermont State Legislature recently agreed to provide over $700,000 to support this service for the year. In addition, the Vermont Legislature has included funding to study yet another passenger rail link to the western side of Vermont. This new route would allow passengers from New York City to reach some of Vermont's most beautiful recreation areas in under 5 hours. I predict that many travelers will choose to take this new train over driving or flying. Both of these rail lines represent an opportunity to get commuters, tourists, and travelers out of their cars. This will alleviate congestion, reduce air pollution and reduce our reliance on imported oil. As noted, these rail lines also require State funding. The funding mechanism contained in this legislation will allow States to utilize Federal funding to maintain their rail infrastructure. Such efforts will assist in the establishment of intercity rail travel and the servicing of rail infrastructure for freight and other commercial rail options. Mr. President, this legislation will allow States to decide how they will best use their Federal transportation dollars. I hope my colleagues will support these efforts.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I wish to comment just briefly on the comments of the minority manager of the bill. I wish to assure him that coming from a State that suffered as much from the problems of product liability reform, having lost much of our machine tool industry and a big cause of that being the big differences between the liability of our own businesses in this country and those of our foreign competitors, I will not do anything in any way to destroy the opportunity to have product liability pass, and I think I speak for the Members on my side of the aisle. However, I feel I must bring to his attention and the attention of my colleagues that there is a very noncontroversial aspect of the McConnell amendment which, if passed, would move us a long way towards two very important matters in the health care area. First of all, it would assist in preventing medical malpractice, which is probably the most important thing we can do. What we want to do is to provide the opportunity to gather the information which would be necessary to be able to prevent the occurrence of malpractice by having sufficient guidelines and information available to doctors so that the number of incidents of malpractice will be decreased. And second is to protect consumers. We are moving into an area right now where we have managed care throughout this country. Health care reform is going on. Notwithstanding the fact that we failed to pass anything of any substance last year, health care reform is going on. But the managed care concept raises real serious problems for consumers as to how they can be protected when they get into situations where choice of the doctor may not be what they intend or even available to them. How can they get information on what is available to see if the care they are going to get or the doctor or physician they have is one that is qualified? So I am referring to a part of the McConnell amendment that is under subtitle B that is called ``Protection of the Health and Safety of Patients,'' and most particularly section 32, which is entitled, ``Quality Assurance, Patient Safety, and Consumer Information.'' We are now in the information age, and with all of the computer internets, all the information that is able to flow back and forth, we have an opportunity to give to the health care providers the ability to know what is good care and what is not good care, to have information on outcomes to be able to determine as to what should be done and what is good care and what is not good care. All this bill does is to provide an organized system for obtaining this information in various ways and making it available for those purposes. No one disagrees with that. So I would hope, if nothing else, we can include these things which are totally noncontroversial to this bill if it should prove the malpractice provisions otherwise might bring the bill down. What it does is establish an advisory panel to coordinate and evaluate methods, procedures and data to enhance the quality, safety and effectiveness of health care services provided to patients. No one disagrees with that. In order to do that, the panel that would be set up will assure that the members of the panel include representatives of the public and private sector, entities having expertise in quality assurance, risk assessment, risk management, patient safety and patient satisfaction. What it does, it establishes these objectives, again for which there is absolutely no problem with anyone. The survey shall include gathering data with respect to, first, performance measures of quality for health care providers and health plans; second, developments in survey methodology, sampling, and audit methods to try to determine what is going on; third, methods of medical practice and patterns and patient outcomes; and fourth, methods of disseminating information concerning successful health care quality improvement programs, risk management and patient safety programs, practice guidelines, patient satisfaction and practitioner licensing, all things we know are essential to be able to give us the kind of information we must have to protect the consumer and as well to give guidance to the medical profession to reduce the opportunity for malpractice. In addition, ``the administrator shall * * * establish health care quality assurance, patient safety and consumer information guidelines. Such guidelines shall be modified periodically. Such guidelines shall be advisory in nature and not binding.'' So we are not doing anything that anyone can disagree with but will be so important to provide the information that is necessary, made available through internets and whatever else, to ensure that we are getting the best care possible that is available. So I do not think anyone can disagree with these provisions which the McConnell substitute attempts to accomplish. So I would urge my colleagues, be assured that there are many good things that are noncontroversial and very important to the improvement of our health care system which are in the McConnell substitute and which are not things that should give us any concern at all. So I hope, as we go forth here, if the minority manager of the bill is correct in that malpractice is going to be so controversial that it will not pass, that something which the sooner we get started the sooner we will be able to prevent medical malpractice and the sooner we give protection to consumers ought to go forward in some way along with this bill rather than have to wait, so that we can get to the business of providing that kind of information and that kind of assistance to both practitioners and to consumers. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. amendments: On Harkin, there will be 20 minutes equally divided; on the Wellstone amendment, 20 minutes equally divided; and the Hatfield/Byrd managers' amendment, 15 minutes equally divided.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the rescissions bill we are discussing today, H.R. 1158, cuts $35 million from the Department of Energy's solar, wind and renewables research and development budget. The amendment I offer today will limit to $25 million the amount to be rescinded from this account, thereby protecting vital renewable energy programs. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Wellstone, Senator Chafee, Senator Daschle, Senator Roth, Senator Campbell, Senator Harkin, Senator Leahy, Senator Kerry, Senator Pell, Senator Kohl, Senator Kennedy, Senator Murray, and Senator Feingold. Mr. President, this amendment is about creating jobs, reducing our foreign debt, reducing our reliance on imported oil, making American business more competitive, maintaining our commitment to these small energy companies and continuing on the path of developing clean, cheap, efficient energy. Mr. President, we are proposing to restore $10 million to the Department of Energy's solar, wind and renewables R&D budget. This money is primarily used for research, joint ventures with small U.S. companies, market development and commercialization. Federal support for renewable energy research and development has been a major success story. Costs have declined, reliability has improved and a domestic industry has been born. More work still needs to be done in basic research at our national labs and applied development to bring down costs and work with industry. The $10 million we restore to renewables will come from the $1 billion Army Corps of Engineer's construction account. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will vote for clean domestic energy, domestic jobs, reduced trade deficit and a stronger economy. I would like to thank the managers of this bill for their support.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object, I am not sure where I stand, Mr. President.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have an amendment for which I do not need more than 10 minutes which I intend to offer.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I can assure the Senator that I will work with him to enact those provisions as soon as is feasible.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes. The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] and I met with the chairman of the House Subcommittee on the District of Columbia and the District's congressional delegate to discuss this legislation, and both of them agreed that the language in the House report accurately reflects the scope of authority being granted this new entity, which we are here creating.

Mr. JEFFORDS. As chairman of the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee, I too have been closely involved in the development of this legislation, and I can say that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] has in his description accurately reflected my understanding of the effect of section 207.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the Nation's Capital is in financial trouble. This bill provides the mechanism to restore the city to fiscal health, but make no mistake the responsibility for acting rests squarely on the shoulders of the elected leaders of the District of Columbia. This Authority has the tools to get the job done, but the District government has the responsibility and accountability to act. This bill is not perfect. There are things that I would change, I am sure most Senators feel that way, however on balance it has the essentials to get the job started and deserves our support. The amendments proposed make improvements and clarifications, and I encourage our House colleagues to accept these changes and send the bill on to the President so that the Authority can begin its work. There is a financial crisis in the city, we should not delay action and send the message to the citizens of the city, to the financial markets, and to the District government that the Congress does not consider this crisis worthy of our immediate attention. Every Senator who has worked on this bill, and indeed probably every Senator in this body, wants to preserve home rule for the citizens of this city. Other cities have gotten into financial difficulty and their states established a financial control board which for a time assisted the city government in managing its fiscal affairs. But there are important features of those state statutes that are also part of this bill which preserves to the local citizens the right, and responsibility, to make difficult decisions. These features include provision for reduction of the Authority's powers upon certain events, principally achieving balanced budgets during 4 consecutive years. In short, there is a clear definable end to this intrusion on the city's sway over its fiscal matters, this bill preserves home rule. I want to express my appreciation to Senators Cohen and Roth for bringing this bill to the Senate for consideration. They and their staffs have worked tirelessly to make sure that this bill reached this point today. In the long-term this bill will make a positive difference to the citizens of the District.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Cory Heyman, a Jacob Javits fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for today's proceedings.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to talk to my colleagues about the rescissions bill and also, in a broader context, about the situation with respect to education in the country. I am going to run through a relatively large number of charts today, each of which is very significant and with a great deal of information involved. As time progresses through the spring, I will go over each of these areas in greater detail. But I think now, as we begin talking about the rescission bill, it is important that we examine the cuts in the critical area of education. When it becomes necessary to cut, it is easiest when everyone holds hands and says, ``Oh, let's take our cuts and suffer together.'' However, in some cases, cuts may exacerbate the deficit problem, not ease it. Education is a critical item in this regard. Earlier this year, business representatives from the Business Round Table, the National Alliance of Business, NAB, and the chamber of commerce approached me with concerns about the state of the work force and its ability to meet the increasing effective international competition. As a result, this Wednesday, a summit will be held here in Washington representatives, and political leaders. I would like to share with you today the facts I will share with them on Wednesday. It is my hope that, when you review this information, you will agree that cutting educational funds could be most counterproductive to deficit reduction and for our future. When the Berlin Wall came down, we all breathed a sigh of relief. But as we were beating against the wall over the decades since World War II, our economic competitors were beating us in entering into the evolving markets around the world. They now stand ready to meet the demands of the new markets of Asia, Eastern Europe, and the rest of the world. Ours remains the most productive economy in the world, but our failing educational system and the inability to provide the necessary work force for our industry is seriously threatening our edge and our economic future. Most worrisome is that the gap between our level of learning and that of our major competitors is increasing--that is, it is getting worse-- not decreasing. Especially in the critical areas of math and science, American children trail their counterparts in Europe and Asia. And they are losing ground. Let us take a look at the status of our education. I would remind everyone that in 1983, Secretary of Education Bell, under the Reagan administration, set forth ``A Nation at Risk'' and analyzed our educational system, analyzed where we stood in the world and declared that this Nation was at serious risk. In fact, he went on to say, in words of this nature, that if an enemy of this country had forced upon us the educational system that we have in this country today, we would consider it an act of war. Since that time, 1983, a number of serious reports, documents and books have been written, all saying the same thing. We have had two summits since then. We established goals in 1989, which were adopted this past year, to determine where we must be in order to be competitive in the international world. I think this first chart that I will show you, chart A, kind of says it all with respect to where we are with the rest of the world in those critical areas of math education. Look at it. You can hardly even see it is on the chart. But the most startling aspect of this chart is to look at who No. 1 is--China--China, by far. And when you consider that it has a population of nearly 1.2 billion people and when you consider the serious deficit that we have in our trade with China, can you not help but be concerned that this is a serious problem. But if you do not like that one, if you do not care about the international scene, if you do not think we have to worry about our market, take a look at this next chart. This is the one which shakes me up the most. This one says that over half of the high school students in this country who graduate are functionally illiterate. That means they are unable to perform basic tasks to get a job. That is so startling to me that I cannot help but wonder whether or not this Nation is going to survive if we do not do something. The business community is deeply concerned about this. In fact, there was a report that came out a few weeks ago, which was reported in the New York Times and elsewhere, which indicated that businesses do not even bother to interview high school graduates anymore. It is not worth their time. They are not educated enough. What business does then is spend some $200 billion a year to train and educate their workers. I will show a chart later which illustrates the costs associated with a well-trained work force. Let us take a look at where we stand. We established a goal under Goals 2000, that everyone shall be educated at least to meet certain basic standards. We set forth a curriculum and standards in the 1983 report, ``A Nation at Risk.'' In 1990, only 22 percent of our high school graduates were adequately educated in the recommended core curriculum. We have a serious problem. Yet, we have a hard time convincing many of that. I found myself going to my own local high school and asking the question: ``How are we doing?" And they said, ``We're doing fine.'' Then they told me, ``Well, our kids now are taking calculus and some of them are taking it in their junior year.'' I said, ``Wow, that's great, I didn't get it until I was in college.'' However, the problem with that is if you are in Taiwan, Japan, or other areas, you are getting calculus in your freshman year. And one wonders why we are so far behind. I think the only way we can get people to understand is to show the impact it is having upon the Nation as a whole. I feel in this Nation, we have a tendency--I know I do--to compare our school system with the one in the next county or our State with another State, but we fail to compare it with those of our competitors. If you take a look at this chart, and you will see as we go through these charts, if we do not have an educated population and if you as an individual do not have an adequate education, you will not have an adequate earning capacity in this Nation, to give you the kind of lifestyle you desire. This chart basically shows that education means a job, and the more education you have, the more money you are going to make during your life. It also indicates that about 25 percent of the people who are school dropouts, many of whom are also functionally illiterate, have an extremely difficult time finding employment. But as this shows, if you get a bachelor's degree your earning potential almost doubles; if you go up to a master's, it will double again. The point is if we do not have an educated population, if you are not well educated, you have a very limited earning potential. Let us take a look now at the differences this means in the standard of living in this country. As I indicated, our education has not kept up. Our competitors are beating us. This is a chart which is used over and over again to show that in the last 20 years or more, the person who drops out of high school has seen a decrease of 35 percent--I repeat, a decrease of 35 percent--in their real income. If you only have a high school diploma, you have seen an 18-percent decrease in your median family income, and if you had some college but did not graduate from college, there has been an 11-percent decrease over the last 20 years in your standard of living. Only those who went to college and beyond have seen an increase in their standard of living over the past 20 years. That is a sad commentary on where we are. I think it is important that we keep this in mind and recognize that we have to improve the educational system. In a few moments, I will go on to explain what must be done and how I hope we can accomplish it. Now let us get to the area we are discussing today and will be discussing in the next few months, and that is, what does the budget do, what impact does it have on our future budgets? What we find on this chart is that over half a trillion dollars in costs are suffered by this Nation because of a failed educational system. Let me run through these figures. It costs $225 billion to our businesses each year--$225 billion each year--for remedial education, to teach the young people the things they should have learned up through high school, and for skill education, the things that they need to have to hold a job which will help us in our international competition in order to increase our Nation's productivity. We spent $208 billion for various welfare expenditures in this Nation. This is yet another reflection of what happens when people are not sufficiently educated. There are some 80 million functionally illiterate individuals in this country who cannot fully contribute to our economy; $43 billion is the cost of crime to our society; incarceration costs anywhere from $20,000 to $60,000 per inmate, money which could be put to better use. Money is not the only way we suffer from crime; it also poses a danger to our society. Yet when we recognize that close to 80 percent of the people incarcerated are school dropouts, it indicates how extraordinary the impact of education is on our society. for lost productivity as well as, I mentioned, training. What I want to point out is if we decrease our expenditures in education, then we increase the social costs and in turn our deficit will grow. But equally important--it is not shown on this chart--is that if we did not have to pay for these undereducated individuals and if there was not the drain on the economy their lack of education caused, we would actually have $125 billion more in revenue. So when we cut back on education, we run the risk of not only increasing social costs but also decreasing the amount of revenues we will have at our disposal. Let me go on and talk about the basic question which is relevant to the area of the deficit. There are people who will say--and they are correct--that lack of money is not necessarily the problem and, in many cases, this is true. We spend more than any other society does, as a percentage of our gross national product, on education. But what we do not do is get our kids to learn as much as other young people do in this world. Let us take a look at one of the areas that should graphically display why we are behind our international competitors. The only thing we need to look at in this country is the number of hours our kids spend watching television. Look at that chart, it shows that we have far outpaced all of the other children in the world by the amount of time they spend on education, and yet we have the least amount of time spent on homework. Yes, the problem is not just necessarily money. There is no question about it. A lot has to do with parents, a lot has to do with our culture, which sometimes puts leisure time and TV ahead of homework. Let us take a look at the next chart. The next chart I want to point out is that even though we expend a lot more money than other countries do on our education, there are still areas we all agree are important and yet there are dire insufficiencies. For example, programs that assist lower-income individuals. First of all, studies show that early intervention helps. A Michigan study, which was a 20-year longitudinal study, indicates that although kids will catch up in educational aspects, many who suffer for special education needs, will suffer social misadjustment. Yet all of those problems decrease substantially if you have a program like Head Start preschool education. I remember when I first came to the Senate. A group of CEO's came to my office. I thought they would talk about tax relief, but they said the thing we need to do right away is to fully fund Head Start in order to get our educational system up to par. I will never forget that meeting because it made me fully aware of the educational needs of this Nation. Title 1. That is, again, an educational program for low-achieving students in high-poverty areas, to help bring them up to par. Funding this program fully would be another $12 billion a year. Special education. I was on the committee that wrote the special education law in 1975. It was a necessity. The courts ruled that every child in America is entitled to an appropriate education. We wrote the law that established the national criteria to make sure that people would be in compliance with the Constitution. We said we would fund it at 40 percent of the total costs of special education in the country. If we were funding it at 40 percent right now, many educational needs would be met and schools would not be in the dire circumstances they are in. Some 44 States are in crisis, as far as funding education. That would cost us another $11 billion a year if we were to fully fund the needs for special education--the funds that we promised our Nation when we passed that law many years ago. To reach full funding for all three categories, it would require another $31 billion a year. That is to increase costs in programs that everybody has agreed are essential and necessary to education. Mr. President, in conclusion, I want to say that we are faced with serious problems with respect to the deficit of this Nation. We know that we have to bring down the cost of Government. But it is important to remember the importance of educational funding as we go forward. Right now, 50 percent of our young people do not have the basic requirements of education to meet the demands of this Nation in order to be ready for a job. That is intolerable. Take a look at international competition. People out there are seizing our markets. At a time when markets are expanding rapidly in Asia, Eastern Europe, and central Asia, we are not ready and will not be ready unless we change right now the priority that education receives in this Congress and in the country. As I said, we will be having a summit meeting this week on Wednesday and we will have leaders from all over the country who will be examining what we should do as a country to ensure that our work force is ready for the next century and that our industry, which has provided us with a bountiful living over many years in the past, will be there when we need it. On the positive side, I note that recently we had six young men that were involved in an international math competition. They not only came in first, but they had perfect scores. But as I pointed out earlier on a chart, it is the average that counts. Our average is among the worst, not the best. Mr. President, I have traveled to cities and around this country and I have found programs that swell my heart with pride, and I feel that there is hope and there are ways that we can succeed. But those examples are few and far between. I have seen much more that indicates to me the frightful direction that our educational system is taking. Mr. President, it is up to us in this body, in the Congress, to ensure that we do not do what is so tempting in these times of strife, and that is cut education along with other programs. We should do all we can to make sure that we bring education to a capacity that will meet our needs in the next century. Mr. President, if we do not help our kids, then this country will fail. I feel very strongly, as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Education, that I have a responsibility to make sure this body is aware of what must be done. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Two minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. It may well be that we should take another look at this program, but this is no place to do it. There may be States like Arizona and Oklahoma and others that may be willing to give up whatever they get under LIHEAP because they do not have the needs of some of the other areas of the country. In my State of Vermont, this is a critical program. Over the last 3 years, energy prices have gone up in Vermont by 21 percent. At the same time, LIHEAP funding has gone down by $300 million. The average family who receives LIHEAP assistance spends over 18 percent of its income on energy. This is three times the energy burden for median-income families. I would expect a lot less for those in Arizona and Oklahoma. Fifty-five percent of all LIHEAP homes include at least one child under the age of 18 and 43 percent include a senior citizen. Both figures are far above the national average. Without LIHEAP assistance, many recipients could not afford to pay their heating bills in the winter and many would be forced to choose between heat and food. Rescinding LIHEAP will also force energy providers in Vermont, and many other areas, many of whom are small unregulated businesses, to choose between not getting paid for the energy they provide and cutting off their neediest customers. LIHEAP is well run and administered by State and local governments who keep administrative costs at about 8 percent, far below the average, so the money is getting to those who need it. It has strong bipartisan support from Senators in my region and all around the country. I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Jeffords pertaining to the introduction of S. 643 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for a period not to exceed 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and Senator Murray, the James P. Grant World Summit for Children Implementation Act of 1995. This is a bill designed to help the United States implement its commitment to our children and to children at risk throughout the world. In 1990, the United States and 158 other nations participated in the World Summit for Children at which they signed a plan of action setting goals to be reached by the year 2000. Those goals were: To reduce child death rates by at least one-third; to reduce maternal deaths and child malnutrition by one-half; to provide all children access to basic education; to provide all families access to clean water, safe sanitation, and family planning information; and to reduce medical costs for children. Our legislation also urges full funding by the year 2001 for Head Start, a program that dramatically improves the performance of children in their early years in school. Internationally, this bill would shift funds within the U.S. foreign assistance budget to meet the urgent needs of children. Specifically, it would increase allocations in foreign assistance for a few cost- effective programs: Child survival, basic education, nutrition programs, UNICEF, AIDS prevention, CARE, refugee assistance, and family planning. If we are truly concerned about the kind of future we leave for our children, we must look beyond our borders to the world they will inherit as they come of age. If we want our Nation to be prosperous, we must invest in our future. In times of fiscal restraint, it is more important than ever we clearly focus on our top priorities. Children, both here and throughout the world, are the top priority.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in my home State of Vermont, above my home city of Rutland, the Coolidge Range of the Green Mountains dominates the skyline. One of the kings of this range is the great rounded summit of Pico Peak, 3,957 feet high. On the northern and western slopes of this Vermont giant are the ski trails of Pico Ski Resort, one of Vermont's oldest ski areas. Long known as the Friendly Mountain, it is the place where my family has skied. Believe me, some of its trails test the friendly description. Since 1971, Frank Heald, a good friend of mine, has well served Pico and Vermont. Frank is now retiring as Pico's executive vice president and general manager holding the later post since 1982. Under Frank's leadership, Pico has grown into a major Vermont ski area, a major eastern ski area. His accomplishments loom nearly as large as the mountain itself. When I was a youngster, the ski area reached only to a sub-summit of Pico, the grand mass of the main mountain hardly utilized at all by the ski area. Now the lift lines and ski trails go all the way to the top, not only on Pico but on surrounding summits. On a cloudy day, the trails seem to descend from the sky. With Frank's sure guidance, modern lifts have been installed, as have a have been cut, snowmaking has been upgraded. Summer has become almost as busy as winter with an alpine slide, crafts fairs, concerts. Some 150,000 skiers visit the mountain each year. But Frank has not limited his talents to serving Pico. His community and his State have benefited from his many talents, time and again. He currently serves as chair of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Vermont board and as president of the Alpine Pipelines Co. He's a trustee of the Vermont Historical Society and a member of the Rutland Redevelopment Authority and is a past president of the Vermont Ski Areas Association. And he has long worked to bring inner-city kids to Pico to experience Vermont outdoor recreation. Also, he chaired my Congressional Youth Awards Program in Vermont. That is only a partial list of the worthwhile enterprises which Frank has graced with his unfailingly sound judgment and boundless energy. Vermont is the better for his having come our way. Pico is a place of legends. The Mead family, legends of American skiing, founded the area and on it many ski champions have learned the sport and developed into world class skiers. The most famous of all was Andrea Mead, the first American woman to win an Olympic ski medal. When the stories of Pico and its famed sons and daughters are recalled at firesides down the long winter nights of Vermont winters ahead, the name of Frank Heald will be mentioned with the greats as a true pioneer and entrepreneur of Vermont skiing. His contributions are worthy of recognition here in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I join my senior Senator in this amendment, which will help make Vermont summers on Lake Champlain a little bit better. Mr. President, I wish to thank the managers of this legislation for accepting this important amendment. I would especially like to thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler, and the ranking member, Senator Hollings, for their assistance with this measure. Mr. President, included in the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, Jones Act waivers allow for vessels transporting owned, and manned be given the right to do so. With the passage of this amendment, the Spirit of Ethan Ellan II, which was built in the United States and operated under Canadian ownership for a short time, will be able to resume operations as a United States vessel on Lake Champlain in time for the summer tourist season. The Spirit of Ethan Allen II will provide an invaluable service to Vermonters and tourists who come to appreciate Vermont's beautiful setting. I can think of no better way to view this beautiful and historic lake. This vessel will be the only one of its kind in Vermont, offering scenic cruises, wedding and prom receptions, and dinner parties. In addition, the Spirit of Ethan Allen II will be active in charity fundraisers and a program called Education on the Lake, informing young people of the geological and historical character of the Lake Champlain area. In addition, the Spirit of Ethan Allen II will host events for visiting conferences and conventions in the Burlington area, enhancing the experience of those who stay in the area's hotels and inns. Lake Champlain Shoreline Cruises will employ over 25 people to operate the vessel, making a significant contribution to the continuing development of the Burlington waterfront area. I am pleased that this legislation will ensure that the Spirit of Ethan Allen II begins operating in time for the summer tourist season. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, earlier today, due to inescapable circumstances I was absent from a cloture motion vote on the Kassebaum amendment No. 331. On my journey to the Senate Chamber I was trapped in an elevator in the Senate Dirksen Building for 40 minutes. I extend my most sincere thanks to the Senate superintendent's office for its assistance in my rescue. I must say that crawling out of the elevator was certainly a new and exciting experience, but not one I hope to repeat anytime soon. As I have said in prior statements I support Senator Kassebaum's amendment and would have voted in favor of cloture had I been able. the defense industrial base

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 9, 1995, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on ``Implementation and Costs of U.S. Policy in Haiti.''

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I did not expect to spend much time on the floor today discussing the subject of permanent striker replacement. As we have seen, we have had eloquent speeches by Members of the minority who have set forth an issue for us which was led to by action of the President just recently and the amendment by the Senator from Kansas. I rise in favor of that amendment. Like many of my colleagues, I thought we had put this issue to bed last year when both the House and Senate considered S. 55 and it was rejected, or never even left the desk in the Senate. President Clinton made his support of this type of legislation clear during the 1992 election campaign, and he and Secretary of Labor Reich have reaffirmed their commitment to a striker replacement bill on numerous occasions since. Clearly, the President would have signed a congressional bill if it had been laid on his desk. However, as we know, S. 55 never left the Senate desk. The President certainly is free to attempt another legislative push for a bill like S. 55. I would not welcome the attempt, but it would be well within the normal flow of our governmental process for him to do so. However, it is abnormal, unusual, and unprecedented for President Clinton to address this issue through the Executive order he issued yesterday. The legal arguments against the President's action are many and compelling. Congress has spoken consistently on this subject in the context of the National Labor Relations Act for over half a century. In 1938, the Supreme Court handed down the Mackay Radio decision authorizing permanent replacement of economic strikers. Since then Congress has considered amendments to the act several times, but it has never approved overturning Mackay. So it is important to remember this, because as we go forward and talk about Executive orders and the power of Executive orders, it must be remembered that this present law is consistent with a U.S. Supreme Court decision. An Executive order that directly contravenes the express will of Congress issues under the Constitution. For the past several weeks, we have heard very powerful arguments on the importance of this separation of powers in the context of the balanced budget amendment, and I expect we will hear more when we soon turn to consideration of the line-item veto. These arguments, while perhaps valid, are speculative. In the case of the Executive order in question, the challenge is clear and present. An Executive, frustrated by legislative inaction, is seeking to accomplish by Executive order what has been explicitly denied him by the legislatures and which is inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision. I hope those of my colleagues who have been concerned about the issue of the separation of powers will see fit to support the Kassebaum amendment, regardless of their views on the merits of the legislation banning permanent replacements. This is not to say that the President cannot use Executive authority to attach conditions to parties entering into contracts with the Federal Government. But that power has generally been used to force or encourage contractors to do something that is consistent with existing law or policy. By contrast, the present order would deny contractors the right to take action which is authorized under the National Labor Relations Act, which has been upheld by the National Labor Relations Board and the Supreme Court, and which Congress has repeatedly refused to outlaw. Thus, the President's order swims upstream against the current of existing law and policy. In doing so, it is unprecedented and unsupportable. Legal arguments aside, perhaps the most compelling evidence on the weakness of this policy comes from the administration itself. We witnessed, or more accurately did not witness, a stealth signing ceremony, where partisans were invited but the press was excluded. In fact, the defense of the policy from the White House gives ``weak'' a bad name. Ostensibly, the policy is designed to ensure the quality of products the Government procures. This is an extraordinary position for at least two reasons. First, it exhibits a total lack of faith in the Government procurement process. Apparently, all the administration's efforts to retool the procurement process have produced and Edsel, as it apparently will be unable to distinguish and reject faulty products in the absence of this Executive order. This is a very sad commentary on GSA, the Department of Defense, and every contracting agency. But even if we could believe this sad state of affairs, it belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of a strike. The alternative to permanent replacement workers is not a happy stable of industrious elves, but shutdowns, shorthanded shifts staffed by managers and supervisory staff, of temporary replacements. It is hard to see how these alternatives will result in the production of appreciably higher quality goods or services. Back in the real world, the failure to meet standards would free the Government to contract with other providers. Future Federal contracts might be jeopardized as a result of failure to live up to contract terms. Thus, it would be a self-defeating act of the highest order for a contractor to put itself in this position. If the administration were really worried about the impact of strikes and permanent replacement workers on the procurement process, then it would condition the receipt of Federal contracts on the assurance that performance of the contract would not be interrupted by a strike. That step, and that step alone, would ensure that a trained and stable work force would do the work throughout the contract. Doing so, of course, would be a bad idea, because it would diminish the rights of one party to a collective bargaining agreement, it would reduce the pool of potential bidders and would likely increase costs to the Federal Government. But this description applies equally well to the administration's policy. Madam President, I think it is clear that the President's purpose is not to aid the cause of public procurement, but that of partisan politics. It is a bad idea whose time will never come. His action is a clear affront to the separation of powers, is of questionable legality, and will ill serve labor management relations and the taxpayers. Given all these considerations, I strongly support the amendment offered by the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, the Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, and hope that the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will agree that this step, putting aside all of the partisan politics, is just ill-advised from the perception of the separation of powers and for good policy. It seems that no traditional labor law issue so galvanizes the actions of the interested parties as does the legislative debate on striker replacements. While all can agree that this issue cuts to the very heart of the collective bargaining relationship, there is wide disagreement on whether a ban of replacements would help or hurt the institution of collective bargaining. At the outset, Madam President, we need to agree on whether there is a problem requiring a solution before passing that solution into law or mandating it by Executive order. My difficulty with the President's order is that I am not convinced there is a problem with the hiring of permanent striker replacements that requires any solution, much less the absolute ban advocated by this Executive order. Moreover, even the data produced in support of similar legislation over the past several years are at best inconclusive on whether use of permanent replacements is a growing trend in the business community or that it is any more prevalent now than it was in the past. Madam President, the impetus for this Executive order is, to a large extent, driven by the celebrated cases where permanent replacements were used. Thus we have heard over the years about Eastern Airlines, Greyhound, the New York Daily News, and now Bridgestone-Firestone to name just a few. However, these and other examples of the use of permanent replacements do not suggest models of successful corporate strategies. To the contrary, many of these companies have suffered grinding reversals of their business fortunes, up to and including total business collapse, following the use of replacements. I do not believe that many companies will want to adopt a pattern of behavior which leads to such results. And again, of course, the statistics do not show that many have chosen to do so. The Clinton administration has set in motion the process of taking a hard look at our system of labor laws. Toward that end, a blue ribbon Dunlop Commission was established with the mission of studying workplace cooperation and recommending ways of reforming worker- management relations to ``create an environment within which American business can prosper.'' That Commission has now issued its report and recommendations. It is significant to note that the Commission did not recommend the radical change in the law on replacements that the President's Executive order mandates. From the beginning of the debate on this issue, I have suggested that we need to open up a broad-based discussion on the way in which labor relations disputes are resolved. I am a supporter of the American system of collective bargaining and I believe, for the most part, that it does a good job. However, the simple truth is that system works better for everyone in times of economic expansion than it does in connection with the setbacks and retrenchment found during a recession. This elementary fact probably has as more to do with any increase that may have occurred in replacement situations than does some fanciful conclusion about changes in employer attitudes brought on by President Reagan`s handling of the air traffic controllers strike. I for one would be willing to explore the options which exist in the area of alternative dispute resolution. We do have some history on this issue. There are segments of the American work force where the right to bargain collectively does not include the right to strike. The majority of these are within the public sector. In those instances, various systems have been devised for resolving disputes on which the parties themselves cannot agree. Perhaps it is time to begin moving away from the replacement workers and toward some alternative system of dispute resolution for more of the private sector. Madam President, this is not a new exercise that we engage in today. Elements found in the bill have been seen in legislative offerings at least as far back as the last big labor law reform effort in the 1970's. Further, significant legislative battles have been waged on the issue in each of the past two Congresses. The fact that there has been no evolution toward consensus in the terms of this debate is a sad testament to our collective failure to address this issue realistically. Given the long history of the underlying issues, and the work of the Dunlop Commission, there are many aspects of collective bargaining that we might productively reexamine. For example, it troubles me that unfair labor practice strikers must wait so long for a resolution of their charges. Further, it might be profitable to examine stronger sanctions against those who engage in unfair labor practices. And as one who supported labor law reform in the late 1970's, I am certainly open to suggestions on ways to streamline the process of deciding whether or not a group of workers wishes to organize. With specific regard to permanent replacement of economic strikers, for the past few years I have stated that we should look at the special circumstances presented in concessionary bargaining situations and first contract negotiations. As I stated on the floor of the Senate during the 1992 debate, the situation presented by an employer's demand for contract give backs or concessionary bargaining demands may well be one in which the use of permanent replacements is not justified. Adoption of a restriction on this practice would address most, if not all of the instances of abuse presented to Congress as demonstrating the need for legislation on this issue. Similarly, in first contract negotiations, where there is no established bargaining relationship, I believe a third party intermediary could serve a useful role. Neither the Senate nor the House Labor Committees have examined these ideas in their handling of this issue. Rather, the limited amendments which the Democratic majority permitted to be offered in the House were persistently rejected, while in the Senate S. 55 remained almost defiantly unchanged even in the face of fatal opposition. In the current Congress, this issue is very low on the priority list for the committees of jurisdiction. Perhaps the biggest revolution since the Mackay decision in 1938 has been the shrinking of our world. We were an insular power, one of many, and we emerged from World War II as the greatest economic power on the planet. This was not surprising given that our country was spared from damage during the war. Nor is it surprising that our preeminence has eroded in the decades that followed the war as other countries have rebuilt and retooled. In 1938, we could afford to consider labor-management relations in isolation. In 1994, we no longer have that luxury. Enforcement of the present Executive order will change the face of labor relations in this country. Clearly that is the intent, but is it in the best interest of the country? That is the question. I have yet to hear sufficiently compelling answers to prompt me to vote for legislation doing what the order attempts to do. The fact that the President has opted to proceed by Executive order does not change my mind or prompt my support. Accordingly, while I remain open to the possibility of passing meaningful and wise legislation in this area, this Executive order is not such legislation. Thus, I will vote to stop its implementation and enforcement. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.