Nancy Kassebaum

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today I am submitting legislation to acknowledge the important work and great sacrifice of the men and women of the American Foreign Service. By passing this resolution, the Senate will commend these dedicated public servants for their important service to our country, honor those killed in the line of duty, and seek broader recognition this year of American Foreign Service Day. For many years, the U.S. Government's foreign affairs agencies and the American Foreign Service Association have jointly sponsored a Foreign Service Day observance during which new names are added to the memorial plaque in the Department of State honoring those ``who have died under heroic or inspirational circumstances'' while serving our country abroad. This ceremony has been held within the walls of the State Department. This year, I believe that we as a Nation should join in this observance, just as we join together to honor our military personnel on Armed Forces Day and Veterans Day. The memorial plaque contains the names of 171 brave Americans who have died in service to our country at posts abroad. I ask unanimous consent that a list of these names be printed in the Record. Later this year, the names of the three American negotiators who were killed last fall in search of peace in Bosnia will be added to that plaque. All of us were deeply moved by the tragic sacrifice of Ambassador Robert Frasure, Assistant Secretary of Defense Joseph J. Kruzel, and Col. S. Nelson Drew. We have many debates in this body that involve the American Foreign Service. In the past year, we have debated its structure, we have reduced its funding, we have seen Foreign Service officers unpaid or kept from work because of partial Government shutdowns, and we have been slow to act on many Foreign Service nominees. Each of these actions has its own purpose, but I worry that the cumulative effect may well be to send a signal to our Foreign Service officers that the U.S. Senate doubts the importance of their work. Nothing could be further from the truth. With this legislation, I hope the Senate will send a clear message that, whatever our views on the difficult policy matters that affect America's overseas presence, we all stand firmly behind the important work of America's dedicated Foreign Service officers, and we recognize the undeniable importance of their work. In the coming year, I hope to explore steps we may take to strengthen our Foreign Service. I believe we need to act to ensure that we are recruiting and retaining the very best people that our country has to offer, and I hope to work with the Foreign Service community and my colleagues to identify ways in which the Senate can help. For many people around the world, the men and women of the American Foreign Service are the faces of America. I, for one, believe America owes these men and women a debt of gratitude.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, the Senate is debating whether to give its consent to a treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation that will significantly reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons on each side. This is a solemn responsibility that our Constitution vests in the Senate, and nobody in this body undertakes this task lightly. The Senate has taken nearly 3 years to consider this agreement, which was transmitted to us in the last days of the Bush administration. Both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee have conducted hearings on the treaty and have carefully reviewed its provisions. We have heard from negotiators, foreign policy experts, military officers, and many other analysts. We have heard many thoughtful arguments pro and con. Based on that record, I believe implementation of the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty [START II] is strongly in the national interest of the United States. This treaty, if implemented, will represent, in the words of President Bush, ``a watershed in our efforts to stabilize the nuclear balance and further reduce strategic offensive arms.'' Let me be clear that the START II agreement, while important, leaves unresolved many difficult aspects of the cold war's nuclear legacy. We must find ways to secure and, ultimately, to destroy the fissile material from the dismantled arsenals of the United States and former Soviet Union. We must prevent proliferation both of nuclear materials and of delivery systems. We must pay the environmental price of cleaning up weapons sites. Above all, we must continue to adapt our defense and national security strategies to our times and to strengthen the relationship between ourselves and the Russians: We must ensure that those nuclear weapons that do remain on both sides will never be used. All of these difficult tasks lie outside the limited reach of the START II Treaty. But this treaty will meet one decade-old problem head on. It will significantly reduce the number of nuclear warheads on the Eurasian land mass that are capable of striking the United States. For that reason, I support it. The cold war is over, but the task of safely destroying much of the bloated nuclear arsenals of the former Soviet Union and the United States has yet to be completed. The START II Treaty, which entered into force 1 year ago in December, takes us in that direction. Already we have begun to see its results. In October, in a ceremony broadcast by many television news programs, Defense Secretary Perry and the Russian Defense Minister traveled to Whiteman Air Force Base near Kansas City to watch the destruction of United States intercontinental ballistic missile in accordance with START I, and Secretary Perry has attended a similar ceremony in the former Soviet Union. But START I alone is not enough. START II will carry on the unfinished business of dismantling the cold war's legacy of terror and strategic nuclear instability. Several of my colleagues have outlined in detail the treaty's requirements. In sum, I believe it is fair to say that START II serves America's national security interests in two basic ways. First, it would cap at 3,500 the number of accountable nuclear warheads that each side may possess. The START I limit is 6,000 warheads on each side, and that agreement is not yet fully implemented. In practical terms, implementing START II means the Russians will have to destroy roughly 4,000 nuclear weapons that today are in their arsenal. I, for one, believe that even START II will not complete the important work of nuclear arms control, and I would hope the administration will vigorously explore the option of pursuing a third strategic arms treaty to reduce further the allowable number of warheads and to include not only the United States and Russia but the other nuclear powers as well. Second, the START II Treaty would prohibit the use of multiple warheads [MIRV's] on missiles. The United States long has sought this important goal, which is key to a stable nuclear balance. I commend the majority leader, Senator Dole, for his decision to bring this important treaty before the Senate. Of course, the process of putting this agreement into force does not stop with the U.S. Senate. The treaty also must be approved by both houses of the Russian legislature. Significant political changes are underway in Russia, particularly in light of December's parliamentary elections and the coming Presidential election. It would be unfortunate, indeed, if this important agreement became entangled in Russia's internal political debates. For that reason, I believe the Senate must send a strong message of support. We must make clear that the United States is strongly committed to reducing our nuclear arsenal in the responsible manner outlined by START II as long as the Russians will do the same. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the resolution of ratification.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am ready to go and, rather than call for a quorum, will get started on some comments that I would like to make.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to offer just a few observations on comments that were made by President Clinton in his State of the Union speech the other evening regarding health insurance reform. I was pleased that President Clinton mentioned it, because I think it is a subject of great importance to us. As we debate the future of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, American families are growing increasingly anxious about the availability, portability, and cost of their own private health coverage. While the comprehensive health reform debate ended well over a year ago, the American people continue to rank health reform as a priority and health care as a top concern. A poll conducted late last year by Princeton Survey Research Associates found that more Americans are concerned about their own health coverage than crime, high taxes, the ``political system,'' and the economy. Both the Princeton poll and a Times Mirror poll also found that health care topped the list of issues Americans most want the Presidential candidates to address. The health insurance problem is not merely one of perception. The number of uninsured and underinsured Americans continues to climb: First, there are now over 40 million Americans without health insurance. Second, over 1 million working Americans have lost health insurance in the last 2 years alone. Third, and, over 80 million Americans have preexisting conditions that could make it difficult for them to maintain health coverage when they change jobs. Mr. President, Congress has the opportunity this year to address middle-class Americans' concerns about the diminishing availability, portability, and affordability of health coverage in a bipartisan way. A health insurance reform bill proposed by myself and Senator Kennedy, S. 1028, passed the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee unanimously last August and now awaits action on the Senate Calendar. Similar measures are pending in the House of Representatives, including a companion bill introduced by Representative Roukema of New Jersey. Through sensible, market-based reforms, the Health Insurance Reform Act would: First, limit the ability of insurers and employers to impose preexisting condition exclusions; Second, prevent insurers from dropping coverage when an individual changes jobs or a family member becomes ill; and Third, help small companies gain more purchasing clout in the market. The General Accounting Office estimates that the Health Insurance Reform Act would help at least 25 million Americans each year, and the Congressional Budget Office predicts that it would do so without any cost to American taxpayers. support for the health reform act The Health Insurance Reform Act enjoys broad support. It passed the Labor and Human Resources by a 16 to 0 vote and has attracted 40 cosponsors--20 Republicans and 20 Democrats--from across the political spectrum. Moreover, it has been endorsed by a wide range of outside organizations, including the National Governors' Association, the National Association of State Insurance Commissioners, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Small Business United, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Medical Association. I believe the legislation has achieved broad consensus for two main reasons. First, it is narrowly focused. It does not contain employer mandates, mandatory purchasing alliances, new taxes or new bureaucracies. It does not remake the private health care system in the image of the United States Post Office. Instead, the legislation focuses only on those areas where broad, bipartisan agreement existed during the health care debate in the 104th Congress and where State insurance reforms have demonstrated the ability to work. Second, the legislation was crafted with significant input from consumers, insurers, businesses, hospitals, and doctors. It is carefully attuned to the rapidly changing private health care market. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other employers said in a recent letter, the Health Insurance Reform Act would: * * * improve health coverage for tens of millions of American workers and their families * * * through carefully designed rules that are workable for employers who voluntarily sponsor health plans and for their employees. response to concerns The Health Insurance Reform Act is not without some detractors. We have worked closely with the health insurance industry, and insurers generally support the bill. For example, Blue- Cross Blue-Shield and the Health Insurance Association of America submitted testimony in favor of the vast majority of the bill's provisions. However, some continue to raise concerns about one provision of the legislation that is designed to help individuals and families who have played by the rules maintain health coverage if they lose their job or leave a job to work for an employer that does not offer coverage. I believe, however, that this provision strikes a careful balance between the need to provide consumers some access to individual coverage and the need to protect the fragile individual insurance market. The Health Insurance Reform Act would provide access to individual insurance only for those who have maintained prior continuous coverage under an employer-sponsored health plan for at least 1\1/2\ years, who have exhausted their COBRA benefits, and who are ineligible for coverage are under another group policy. Moreover, S. 1028 contains no restrictions on premiums, and it leaves broader reforms--such as guaranteed issue for individuals who have not had prior coverage, guaranteed issue for the self-employed, and portability between individual health plans--to the States. As a result, the bill requires individuals to pay into the system for years before being able to gain access to health coverage. This group-to-individual portability provision is not far-reaching. It is limited precisely to avoid potential premium increases and adverse selection problems that could result from broader individual market reforms. Testimony and analysis by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and others has confirmed that this narrow provision is unlikely to have a significant impact on the cost of health coverage in the individual market. The most recent estimates from the American Academy of Actuaries show that this provision would likely affect premiums by only 2 to 3 percent. It is true that some insurers who now thrive by refusing to cover those in poor health may be unable to survive in a market characterized by competition based on quality, price, and service. In States like New Hampshire, Vermont, and California that have enacted targeted insurance market reforms like those in the Health Insurance Reform Act, some insurers have left the market--but others have replaced them, competition has flourished, rates have come down, and consumers have benefited. I do share the belief that State high-risk pools are one important way of providing access to insurance for certain individuals. That is why S. 1028 expressly provides that if a State has adopted, or adopts in the future, a high-risk pool or other means of allowing individuals to maintain health coverage, that State law or program will apply in lieu of the group-to-individual portability provision contained in the bill. Instead of preempting State reforms that are working or prescribing a one-size-fits-all solution from Washington, S. 1028 allows each State to fashion individual market solutions that are appropriate for individuals in that State. This is one of the main reasons that both the NGA and the NAIC support the bill. Another argument that is sometimes made is that insurance reform should be left entirely to the States. This argument also ignores reality. While 48 States have enacted insurance reforms targeted to small companies, over 70 percent of workers with health coverage work for firms with more than 100 employees. Moreover, the States are prevented by the broad preemption provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act from providing portability to workers who receive health benefits through self-insured, employer-sponsored health plans. I believe strongly that we should retain ERISA preemption. But as we do, we must recognized that the vast majority of American workers cannot carry their insurance from one job to the next unless we enact portability reforms on the Federal level. it is time to move forward Mr. President, I think we all know people in our own States who would be helped tremendously by this legislation. For nearly a decade, however, Congress has been unsuccessful in attempts to pass health insurance reform legislation. We now have a historic opportunity to move forward. And I believe we should seize that opportunity. Last Congress, Republicans and the American people rejected the administration's comprehensive health reform proposal. Instead, every one of us signed onto market-based health reform legislation that was more ambitious in almost every respect than the Health Insurance Reform Act. Now, the President of the United States has endorsed our approach. And Senator Kennedy and other Democrats should be commended for working with us to make positive change a realty, without letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. While the political dynamic clearly has changed, I believe strongly that Republicans' commitment to moving forward with common sense, market-based health reform legislation should not. I want to make clear to all of my colleagues that I, for one, am absolutely committed to passing health insurance reform legislation this year--either as a freestanding bill or as an amendment to another vehicle. The Health Insurance Reform Act does not strike out in a bold, new direction. But it is a very positive step forward that will reduce barriers to health coverage for millions of working Americans. It is also an opportunity to demonstrate to the American people that Republicans and Democrats can work together to address their most serious concerns about the health care system. I believe we should start by passing this legislation at the earliest possible opportunity. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee. Mr. President, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1995 represents a turning point in how this country will respond to the needs of poor children and their families. For far too long, welfare has failed--failed the families dependent upon Government assistance to give them a new start in life and failed the American taxpayers who have been asked to help those in need. Welfare reform does not need to be mean spirited, and the welfare reform provisions of this bill are not. Change is always difficult and this legislation will produce tremendous changes in how government helps those in need. This legislation shifts primary responsibility for welfare to the States, a move I wholeheartedly endorse. The need for welfare assistance and the solutions to moving people off welfare and into work are closely tied to the economic conditions, opportunities, and resources in a community. That has been one of the biggest problems with the one-size-fits-all approach to welfare necessitated by a heavily mandated Federal program. I believe that States are in the best position to make decisions about how best to help families in poverty gain economic self sufficiency. We do not know what works--what types of programs are the most effective in moving people off of welfare. I believe over the next few years we will see many diverse solutions to the problems of welfare and poverty. Some of these solutions will work, some will not--but much will be gained through the experience. Since the current welfare system has failed so miserably, it is worth the risks involved. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act is a comprehensive bill which changes not only welfare cash assistance, but many other Federal programs as well. As is the case with any major bill, no member is completely satisfied with every single provision. Ultimately, a decision is based on one's judgment that the positives outweigh the negatives. Clearly, in my mind, the fundamental reform offered by this legislation makes it worthy of support. It is my understanding that President Clinton has made a different calculation regarding the merits and demerits of this legislation and has indicated he will veto it. In that event, we will be back at the drawing board. Given a second opportunity to put together a bill, I would hope that several concerns could be addressed. My first concern lies in the area of child protection. The legislation significantly reduces the funds available for recruiting and licensing foster homes, monitoring children in foster care and other alternative placements, completing the court processes needed to free children for adoption, training and recruiting child protection caseworkers, and other activities necessary to maintain an adequate program for abused and neglected children. The cap on child protection funds will put further strain on our already overburdened child protection system and could seriously inhibit states' ability to respond when a child is abused or neglected. I am also concerned about whether the funds available for child care assistance are adequate to meet the needs of families as they move off welfare and into work. The availability of safe, affordable child care is essential to successful welfare reform. At the same time, we need to ensure that low income working families have access to child care assistance. My third concern is about the extent of the changes in the Supplemental Security Income [SSI] program. The legislation will eliminate SSI eligibility for an estimated 21 percent of the children currently receiving benefits and reduce benefits for about 75 percent of the remaining children. While the creation of a two-tiered benefit system distinguishes between the most disabled children who require a higher level of services and those who are moderately and mildly disabled, the legislation places an overwhelming emphasis on physical disabilities. I believe the criteria used to differentiate between those receiving full benefits and those receiving reduced benefits should be reexamined. I am relieved that the effective date for the cash assistance provisions in the bill has been changed to the 1996 fiscal year. This should give States adequate time to make the legislative and administrative changes needed to adjust to the block grant. Successful welfare reform will require careful consideration and planning, and States must be provided the opportunity for a thoughtful, deliberative process regarding how they want to proceed. I believe that these concerns can be effectively addressed. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act is a bold move to change the way in which government responds to people in need of assistance--a move that needs to be taken.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would just like to acknowledge that today breaks the record for the longest term ever held by a Republican leader of the Senate. Senator Dole, as the majority leader, has broken the record that is more than just showing up every day. Perhaps Senator Dole is the Cal Ripken of the Senate. But I would just like to express the appreciation of all of us for the dedicated leadership he has brought, the thoughtfulness and patience that it takes, and as a matter of fact his sheer grit. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, there have been many eloquent speeches given today and last night. I am not sure that much new can be said. Over the last several years, we have debated the pros and cons of what to do about Bosnia, and I have begun to feel like Hamlet. If I could just review some of my thinking at this point, I would like to. The tragedy in former Yugoslavia is truly momentous. Nobody will deny that who has watched this occur over the last several years. We have witnessed, in the past several years, atrocities in Europe that we vowed would never again be allowed. We have stood by while our most important and fundamental military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, that is a fundamental part of our Nation's security, tottered on the brink of disaster, its members squabbling and indecisive while war waged on Europe's doorstep. And we have struggled to understand the nuances of a conflict fueled by both ancient animosities and a contemporary hunger for power, by both the collapse of communism and the friction of ethnic and religious hatred. For most Americans, this is a distant war in an obscure land about issues that do not directly affect our interests. All that may be true. And, yet, we could not ignore it. For the past 4 years, we have feared, above all, that it would spread and embroil the great powers, particularly the United States and Russia, on opposite sides of a war neither of us wanted. We have felt deep compassion and remorse as this war, like all wars, took its greatest toll on the innocents: in refugees driven from their lands, in homes and towns and villages destroyed, in a generation of children, Mr. President, whose lives have been shattered. We have tried to avoid involvement because our direct national interests were not at stake. This, we said, was a European problem. And, yet, because we understood that important national interests could be put at risk if the fighting continued, we could not simply wash our hands of the matter. So America and our European allies took a series of halting steps and tentative measures that over 4 years tarnished our image and called into question our resolve. We imposed an arms embargo on Yugoslavia and later came to regret it. We established safe havens and then failed to protect them against assault. We promised to deliver food and humanitarian supplies to refugees and displaced persons but then failed to use the force necessary to deliver. Those efforts all failed. As a consequence of those failures, we had become involved in Bosnia. American credibility, prestige, and leadership, the intangibles that are so important to our national security around the world, all were damaged. We found ourselves in the worst of situations. America put itself on the line in Bosnia, but we had made no commitment to shaping the outcome. Now we are at a crossroads. The issue before us is whether America should help bring this war to a close. We should, and through our good offices and diplomatic leadership we have done so. I share President Clinton's view that the United States should be a leader for peace. However, I also share the deep reservations of many and that have been spoken of many times today about sending American forces into the Balkans. In my mind, the key to the success of the NATO operation is not the achievement of a military objective, but rather the commitment of the Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian leaders and their people to peace. Absent that strong commitment by the parties to make the Dayton accord work over the long term, no number of international troops will achieve peace. Mr. President, I am not convinced that the three parties to the Dayton accord will stand by their commitments and sustain the peace. We certainly would all pray for that result. All three parties have incentives to sign now, but they do not have the same incentive to keep the peace come spring or after our troops depart. By setting an arbitrary 1-year timetable for the departure of our forces, we invite the parties to wait us out. The Dayton accord is full of ambiguities with empty guarantees of peace, and that probably would not have been possible. Yet the reality is that our troops are going. They are already, many of them, there. Thousands more will follow in the coming days. Whether we like it or not, the President's decision to deploy is behind us. The United States has made a commitment to this operation. Having made that commitment, America must not cut and run. To do so would send a message of weakness around the world that would damage our national interests in a way that the Yugoslavian war itself never could. The reality is that we are involved in Bosnia, and all Americans must do what we can to see this operation through to a successful conclusion. The decision now before us, to my mind, should involve how best to build the prospects for success. I believe Congress has little choice but to support our forces and the operation, because to do otherwise would be to diminish our chances for success, and success is the task at hand. Today we are considering three approaches to the matter. Each is troubling, I suggest. One has already been rejected. I do not believe we should cut off funding with our troops already on the ground. Provoking a constitutional crisis at this point would not serve either our troops or our national interests. I also do not believe expressing support for our troops but opposing the President's decision to send them enhances the mission's prospect for success. That would send an unequivocal message that America's support for this operation is shallow; a message that would be heard, I think, loud and clear by the parties in former Yugoslavia. That leaves us with the approach of the Dole-McCain resolution. I commend the authors of that resolution, who have struggled with the very basic but difficult question left unanswered by the Dayton accords: How will we know when our mission is completed? Or put another way, how did we plan to accomplish a lasting peace in the region after our troops have gone? I have serious reservations about the dual policy the Dole-McCain resolution advocates as a solution to this difficult question. On the one hand, American troops would participate in ostensibly neutral peacekeeping operation to separate the warring parties. On the other hand, America would lead an effort to arm and train one of the parties, the Bosnian Moslems. I have had reservations about this policy articulated by the administration, and I have deeper reservations about endorsing or even expanding that commitment in a congressional resolution. An American-led effort to arm and train, to put our troops in Bosnia at greater risk, could undermine provisions of the Dayton accord that obligate all parties to reduce their armed forces and could lay the foundation for an arms race in the Balkans. Any American effort to arm and train the Bosnian Federation also must recognize and deal with the delicate and contradictory nature of the new Moslem-Croat alliance. Finally, our European allies have serious reservations about a United States-led effort to arm the Bosnian Federation. While many of my colleagues have decried European leadership on Bosnia, I believe that as a member of NATO we have an obligation to coordinate our policies closely with our allies. But despite these concerns, the Dole-McCain resolution is, to my mind, the only real option now before the Senate. I do support it because I firmly believe that Congress must go on record in support of this operation which already is underway. The President has made clear that the operation will proceed with or without congressional support, but I am not sure it can succeed without congressional support. With our troops at risk I believe success must be our highest priority. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I introduce the Food and Drug Administration Performance and Accountability Act of 1995. This comprehensive reform bill is designed to ensure that Americans continue to enjoy and our Nation continues to lead the world in the development of new, life-saving and life-enhancing pharmaceuticals and medical devices and wholesome, abundant, and affordable foods by reforming the role of the Food and Drug Administration in the testing and review of new products. Over the years, the FDA's requirements for clinical testing and its premarket reviews of new products have grown increasingly complex, time-consuming, and expensive. From the 1960's to the 1990's, for example, the time required to complete clinical trials for new drugs has grown from 2\1/2\ years to nearly 6 years. From the beginning of the process to the end, it takes an average of 12 years and costs $359 million to bring a new drug to market. By law, the FDA is required to review and act on applications to market new drugs and devices within 180 days. Today, however, it takes the agency on average 649 days to complete its review of new devices and 570 days to complete its review of most new drugs. These increasing FDA demands on new product development and delays in new product reviews are reducing incentives for research and development, encouraging American companies to locate abroad, delaying Americans' access to new pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and costing American jobs. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to correct these problems. First, the bill makes clear that a prime mission of the FDA is facilitating the rapid and efficient development and availability of safe and effective products that will benefit the public. It puts the agency on notice that Congress and the American people expect it to allocate its time, energy, and resources accordingly. Second, the bill puts teeth into statutory deadlines for agency action. The FDA commissioner is required, in consultation with patient advocacy groups and the regulated industries, to establish and meet yearly performance standards that will bring the agency into compliance and keep it in compliance with statutory deadlines for action on premarket approval applications. The commissioner will be required to report yearly on the agency's performance and, if the agency is out of compliance, to contract with outside experts for product reviews. Third, to ensure that desperately ill and suffering patients have access to promising new therapies, the bill will expand access to investigational new pharmaceuticals and medical devices. To ensure that physicians are as fully informed as possible about these new therapies and about new uses for already approved therapies, the bill will ease the agency's current severe restrictions on the dissemination of information about them. Fourth, the bill establishes a collaborative clinical testing and review process. It requires the agency to meet with companies in the early stage of the clinical testing to establish the parameters for testing and avoid last-minute changes in protocol designs once testing is underway. Once testing has been completed and the agency receives an application for product approval, the agency would again be required to meet with companies to better ensure the smooth and timely review of the application. Fifth, the bill provides the agency with the statutory flexibility it needs to make changes in its clinical testing policies and product review procedures. For example, it modifies current law, which appears now to require two or more clinical studies, to permit the agency to base its approval on one well-designed clinical study when appropriate. As further examples, the bill updates outmoded statutory requirements for the regulation of biological products, reduces the number of medical devices that the agency is required to review, and makes it easier for the agency to use national and internationally recognized performance standards in evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices. In these and in a number of other ways, the FDA Performance and Accountability Act of 1995 will transform the FDA from a growing barrier to innovation into an active partner in innovation.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I introduce the Food and Drug Administration Performance and Accountability Act of 1995. This comprehensive reform bill is designed to ensure that Americans continue to enjoy and our Nation continues to lead the world in the development of new, life-saving and life-enhancing pharmaceuticals and medical devices and wholesome, abundant, and affordable foods by reforming the role of the Food and Drug Administration in the testing and review of new products. Over the years, the FDA's requirements for clinical testing and its premarket reviews of new products have grown increasingly complex, time-consuming, and expensive. From the 1960's to the 1990's, for example, the time required to complete clinical trials for new drugs has grown from 2\1/2\ years to nearly 6 years. From the beginning of the process to the end, it takes an average of 12 years and costs $359 million to bring a new drug to market. By law, the FDA is required to review and act on applications to market new drugs and devices within 180 days. Today, however, it takes the agency on average 649 days to complete its review of new devices and 570 days to complete its review of most new drugs. These increasing FDA demands on new product development and delays in new product reviews are reducing incentives for research and development, encouraging American companies to locate abroad, delaying Americans' access to new pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and costing American jobs. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to correct these problems. First, the bill makes clear that a prime mission of the FDA is facilitating the rapid and efficient development and availability of safe and effective products that will benefit the public. It puts the agency on notice that Congress and the American people expect it to allocate its time, energy, and resources accordingly. Second, the bill puts teeth into statutory deadlines for agency action. The FDA commissioner is required, in consultation with patient advocacy groups and the regulated industries, to establish and meet yearly performance standards that will bring the agency into compliance and keep it in compliance with statutory deadlines for action on premarket approval applications. The commissioner will be required to report yearly on the agency's performance and, if the agency is out of compliance, to contract with outside experts for product reviews. Third, to ensure that desperately ill and suffering patients have access to promising new therapies, the bill will expand access to investigational new pharmaceuticals and medical devices. To ensure that physicians are as fully informed as possible about these new therapies and about new uses for already approved therapies, the bill will ease the agency's current severe restrictions on the dissemination of information about them. Fourth, the bill establishes a collaborative clinical testing and review process. It requires the agency to meet with companies in the early stage of the clinical testing to establish the parameters for testing and avoid last-minute changes in protocol designs once testing is underway. Once testing has been completed and the agency receives an application for product approval, the agency would again be required to meet with companies to better ensure the smooth and timely review of the application. Fifth, the bill provides the agency with the statutory flexibility it needs to make changes in its clinical testing policies and product review procedures. For example, it modifies current law, which appears now to require two or more clinical studies, to permit the agency to base its approval on one well-designed clinical study when appropriate. As further examples, the bill updates outmoded statutory requirements for the regulation of biological products, reduces the number of medical devices that the agency is required to review, and makes it easier for the agency to use national and internationally recognized performance standards in evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices. In these and in a number of other ways, the FDA Performance and Accountability Act of 1995 will transform the FDA from a growing barrier to innovation into an active partner in innovation.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today I am cosponsoring legislation offered by Senators McCain and Feingold to reform our campaign finance laws. This legislation offers a sensible, bipartisan agreement on steps to change our campaign spending and fundraising laws in ways that I believe are long overdue. I am aware that there are deep disagreements within the Senate on this issue, and I know there are legitimate concerns about spending limits. However, I have long believed that money should not be the driving force in congressional campaigns. Mr. President, when I leave the Senate at the end of this term, Kansas will have an open Senate seat for the first time since 1978. Candidates considering this race already are being told that the campaign will cost $2 million or more. In comparison to other, larger States that may seem like a bargain, but the estimates alone impose a high price on our political process. The simple reality is that many good potential candidates, regardless of party affiliation, take themselves out of the running rather than face the grueling task of raising such huge sums of money. In effect, money has become the first primary election. Some may applaud that development as a way to screen out candidates who lack commitment or the ability to raise funds. I believe it too often merely screens out candidates who are unwilling to raise and spend large sums of money in order to be elected to public office. Money should not be an unwritten qualification for the Senate, but in fact it is an increasingly critical factor. The legislation offered by Senator McCain and Senator Feingold does not cure this problem in a perfect and permanent way. The voluntary spending limits set in the bill are just that--voluntary--and can be ignored by candidates who want to spend freely. The incentives for voluntary compliance--free broadcast time, reduced broadcast rates, and reduced mail cost--may be viewed as insufficient and ineffective. However, Mr. President, I believe this bill offers a workable and realistic framework for changes in the way we finance our campaigns. I know the primary sponsors are open to suggestions and ready to engage in good-faith talks on modifications or changes that might be necessary. However, they believe it is time to move forward with campaign finance reform. I agree with them, and I believe they have offered an excellent starting point for this effort. I applaud their work and ask that I be added as a cosponsor of S. 1219.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, last week the Senate and the Nation lost a gifted spiritual adviser. All of us mourn the death of Dr. Richard Halverson, who served here for 14 years as Senate Chaplain before retiring last February. As shepherd of his Senate flock, Dr. Halverson always brought strength of faith and a wealth of patience in his actions to all, whether on the floor of the Senate or to the broader national audience. For 14 years, his prayers began each of our working days and did so with spiritual substance, expecting from all of us the very best standards of conduct, understanding and commitment. I valued his friendship as well as his spiritual leadership. I will hold a special memory of his committed caring and the twinkle in his eye.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Feingold pertaining to the introduction of S. 1419 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I do not need any longer, maybe even less than that. It is just to introduce some legislation.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the legislation before us, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, because I think it reflects sound budget and policy priorities that will be of enormous benefit to this Nation through the next century. This is really what it is about, trying to lay out a roadmap that is going to provide change, provide flexibility, provide initiative, that can give us a strong program to carry us through the years and for the next generation to come and generations after that. There may be some concerns about this turn or that turn. It is an enormous package of very important initiatives. I have great confidence, Mr. President, that we can make it work, and it will require the best efforts of all on both sides of the aisle and working with our State legislatures and our communities to see it is accomplished. I would like to speak briefly about two parts of this package that I have been most directly involved in. One is student loans. This legislation includes $4.955 billion in savings in Federal student loan programs over the 7 years. Earlier today, the ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, said these provisions would help banks and guaranty agencies at the expense of students. I just point out, indeed, that is not the case. Seventy percent of the savings are achieved by reducing subsidies to or imposing new fees on banks and guaranty agencies. None of the savings are achieved by increasing costs to students or their parents. It is very important that this is understood in the public where a message has been put out that is totally erroneous about the effects on students. The remaining 30 percent of savings are achieved by capping the direct loan program at 10 percent of loan volume. This would not change the level of the loan or the amount of the loan. A direct lending program may mean the students may get their loan money more quickly, but it does not have any effect on the amount or interest rates of those loans. In addition, the bill makes income-contingent repayment of student loans available to all students, not just those participating in the direct loan program. I remain concerned about the risk that the direct loan program poses to taxpayers. That is why I believe Congress is being fiscally responsible by demanding to see how it works before expanding it. I do not believe the Department of Education should become the third largest consumer lender in the country. That, indeed, is where it is headed if we go to a full, direct lending program on student loans, consequences which I think need to be carefully thought out and reviewed. Mr. President, I also wish to speak about the child care provisions in this bill. I am pleased that we have, I think, some very strong child care provisions. The bill combines $10 billion in mandatory spending and $7 billion in discretionary spending into a consolidated system for providing child care for children from low-income families, including those working their way off welfare. This is over 7 years. Again, I think when we recognize that 70 percent of the mandatory funds are to be used for families making the transition from welfare to work and for those at risk of going on welfare, and a substantial portion of the remaining funds must be used to help low-income working families who are not and have not been on welfare to meet their child care needs as they are, indeed, struggling to stabilize themselves in the workplace. Equally important, the bill recognizes we cannot ask parents to leave children home alone as a condition of receiving welfare. Therefore, welfare families with a demonstrated need for child care may not be sanctioned for failing to meet work requirements in States that do not offer child care assistance. We need to break a cycle of dependency on welfare, but we need to do it by protecting children and having children have the stability of knowing they are cared for, are wanted and loved in an environment that will help them succeed. I believe we do that by strong child care provisions which really help families begin to move off the welfare rolls. I think there are some very positive provisions. I urge colleagues' support for this legislation and thank all those who played a major role in drafting and working on this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of myself, Senators Leahy, Feingold, and others, imposing sanctions against the Government of Nigeria. Before I explain a bit about this legislation, let me just say I very much appreciate being able to introduce it at this point, because I know we are anxious to begin the debate on the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, a very important piece of legislation, but there has been a tragic occurrence and an escalation of events in Nigeria which I think needs to be addressed. Last week, the Nigerian military regime, led by General Sani Abacha, executed nine Nigerian political activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, following a seriously flawed judicial proceeding. This action, in the face of international pleas for clemency, is the latest in a series of very tragic, tragic, outrageous actions by the Nigerian military government. Until this last atrocity, the international community had engaged in a policy of limited sanctions and diplomatic engagement. In Congress, we sent letters expressing our concern. We engaged the Nigerian Ambassador. We held hearings. But the situation has reached the point where we simply must respond in a forceful and clear manner. Nigeria is a country heading for collapse, Mr. President. Its economic system has deteriorated dramatically. Political repression continues to grow. Ethnic tensions have increased. General Abacha and Nigerian military leadership must understand that their isolation will only increase unless they move toward respecting human rights and a civilian democratic government. Nigeria is a country that has enormous potential, enormous resources to call upon, and it can only be a real tragedy for the African Continent and the rest of the world to see this collapse into such a very tragic situation. The legislation that we are introducing today imposes a series of sanctions against the Nigerian Government. It codifies the number of sanctions already imposed by the administration, including a ban on foreign aid, military sales and export financing; a termination of air flights between Nigeria and the United States; an end to U.S. support for Nigeria at the World Bank, IMF and other international financial institutions; and a visa ban on any Nigerian who formulates, implements or benefits from policies which hinder Nigeria's transition to democracy. The legislation also imposes several new tough sanctions. It bans all new United States investment in Nigeria, including in the energy sector. While some may argue that this step may hurt U.S. businesses, there can be no doubt that the Nigerian regime profits from American investment. Several large projects under consideration personally benefit the top Nigerian leadership. It also freezes the personal assets of the top officials of the Nigerian regime. If these leaders pull the country into a downward spiral of repression and economic decline, there will be a personal cost to them. It expresses a sense of Congress that the international community should consider suspending Nigeria from international sports competitions. South Africa recently expelled Nigeria from a soccer tournament. We should consider following their example in other fora. In addition, recognizing the importance of multilateral action, the legislation urges the President to build international support for other actions, including a U.N. arms embargo, a multilateral oil embargo and a U.N. Human Rights Commission condemnation. It is critical that the United States work closely with other members of the international community, particularly Great Britain and South Africa, in this effort to promote democratic change in Nigeria. Finally, the legislation makes clear our intent to pursue even tougher sanctions if the Nigerian regime continues its brutal and lawless ways. [[Page S 17338]] I am one who believes we must be very cautious in applying sanctions against foreign governments, but I believe the situation in Nigeria has reached the point where we must send an unambiguous and tough signal to General Abacha. We will not stand by idle as he drags his country into chaos. If General Abacha would move toward respecting human rights and instituting a new civilian regime, the sanctions would be lifted and we would welcome Nigeria back as a partner and friend in the international community. If he continues to move in the wrong direction, the isolation will grow and the economic price will be high. Mr. President, I know that Senator Leahy has long been interested and concerned about this situation, as has Senator Feingold. I welcome the opportunity to have them speak to this issue as well. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of myself, Senators Leahy, Feingold, and others, imposing sanctions against the Government of Nigeria. Before I explain a bit about this legislation, let me just say I very much appreciate being able to introduce it at this point, because I know we are anxious to begin the debate on the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, a very important piece of legislation, but there has been a tragic occurrence and an escalation of events in Nigeria which I think needs to be addressed. Last week, the Nigerian military regime, led by General Sani Abacha, executed nine Nigerian political activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, following a seriously flawed judicial proceeding. This action, in the face of international pleas for clemency, is the latest in a series of very tragic, tragic, outrageous actions by the Nigerian military government. Until this last atrocity, the international community had engaged in a policy of limited sanctions and diplomatic engagement. In Congress, we sent letters expressing our concern. We engaged the Nigerian Ambassador. We held hearings. But the situation has reached the point where we simply must respond in a forceful and clear manner. Nigeria is a country heading for collapse, Mr. President. Its economic system has deteriorated dramatically. Political repression continues to grow. Ethnic tensions have increased. General Abacha and Nigerian military leadership must understand that their isolation will only increase unless they move toward respecting human rights and a civilian democratic government. Nigeria is a country that has enormous potential, enormous resources to call upon, and it can only be a real tragedy for the African Continent and the rest of the world to see this collapse into such a very tragic situation. The legislation that we are introducing today imposes a series of sanctions against the Nigerian Government. It codifies the number of sanctions already imposed by the administration, including a ban on foreign aid, military sales and export financing; a termination of air flights between Nigeria and the United States; an end to U.S. support for Nigeria at the World Bank, IMF and other international financial institutions; and a visa ban on any Nigerian who formulates, implements or benefits from policies which hinder Nigeria's transition to democracy. The legislation also imposes several new tough sanctions. It bans all new United States investment in Nigeria, including in the energy sector. While some may argue that this step may hurt U.S. businesses, there can be no doubt that the Nigerian regime profits from American investment. Several large projects under consideration personally benefit the top Nigerian leadership. It also freezes the personal assets of the top officials of the Nigerian regime. If these leaders pull the country into a downward spiral of repression and economic decline, there will be a personal cost to them. It expresses a sense of Congress that the international community should consider suspending Nigeria from international sports competitions. South Africa recently expelled Nigeria from a soccer tournament. We should consider following their example in other fora. In addition, recognizing the importance of multilateral action, the legislation urges the President to build international support for other actions, including a U.N. arms embargo, a multilateral oil embargo and a U.N. Human Rights Commission condemnation. It is critical that the United States work closely with other members of the international community, particularly Great Britain and South Africa, in this effort to promote democratic change in Nigeria. Finally, the legislation makes clear our intent to pursue even tougher sanctions if the Nigerian regime continues its brutal and lawless ways. [[Page S 17338]] I am one who believes we must be very cautious in applying sanctions against foreign governments, but I believe the situation in Nigeria has reached the point where we must send an unambiguous and tough signal to General Abacha. We will not stand by idle as he drags his country into chaos. If General Abacha would move toward respecting human rights and instituting a new civilian regime, the sanctions would be lifted and we would welcome Nigeria back as a partner and friend in the international community. If he continues to move in the wrong direction, the isolation will grow and the economic price will be high. Mr. President, I know that Senator Leahy has long been interested and concerned about this situation, as has Senator Feingold. I welcome the opportunity to have them speak to this issue as well. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Gregg, Nunn, Jeffords, and Gorton, in introducing the Occupational Safety and Health Reform and Reinvention Act of 1995. Senator Gregg has been instrumental in crafting this legislation, which is an important step toward revitalizing a troubled agency. As chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I frequently hear that OSHA focuses too much on paperwork and is too quick to issue citations in spite of good faith compliance efforts. Despite these criticisms, I remain committed to a strong OSHA program and will not compromise workplace safety. Mr. President, as committed as I am to this issue, we also must recognize that a great deal has changed since Congress first enacted the Occupational Safety and Health [OSH] Act in 1970. We have learned that although strong enforcement is important, we do not need a one- size-fits-all OSHA enforcement policy. Most employers agree that safety makes good business sense, so we should not treat all employers the same way. We also have watched the Labor Department become preoccupied with paperwork rather than real safety hazards, and that needs to be changed. Mr. President, this OSHA reform bill will refocus OSHA on its primary mission, which is to improve the health and safety of American workers. It also requires OSHA to differentiate among employers based on their commitment to workplace safety. The legislation we introduce today provides positive incentives for employers to comply with the law. As a result, OSHA's limited resources will focus on the most dangerous work sites. Rather than offering more mandates and punitive sanctions, this bill rewards employers that establish effective health and safety programs or that utilize certified, private sector safety and health professionals by exempting these employers from regular, programmed OSHA inspections. In this way, OSHA may concentrate its efforts on the most dangerous workplaces. OSHA must use its resources efficiently. In addition, the bill reduces penalties for paperwork and other nonserious violations. OSHA must concentrate on serious hazards and not on posting requirements and paperwork. Mr. President, the administration has already endorsed many of the reforms in this proposal in their Reinventing Government report. I applaud those efforts and will assist the Labor Department as we move toward our common goal of improved safety. Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Gregg, Nunn, Jeffords, and Gorton, in introducing the Occupational Safety and Health Reform and Reinvention Act of 1995. Senator Gregg has been instrumental in crafting this legislation, which is an important step toward revitalizing a troubled agency. As chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I frequently hear that OSHA focuses too much on paperwork and is too quick to issue citations in spite of good faith compliance efforts. Despite these criticisms, I remain committed to a strong OSHA program and will not compromise workplace safety. Mr. President, as committed as I am to this issue, we also must recognize that a great deal has changed since Congress first enacted the Occupational Safety and Health [OSH] Act in 1970. We have learned that although strong enforcement is important, we do not need a one- size-fits-all OSHA enforcement policy. Most employers agree that safety makes good business sense, so we should not treat all employers the same way. We also have watched the Labor Department become preoccupied with paperwork rather than real safety hazards, and that needs to be changed. Mr. President, this OSHA reform bill will refocus OSHA on its primary mission, which is to improve the health and safety of American workers. It also requires OSHA to differentiate among employers based on their commitment to workplace safety. The legislation we introduce today provides positive incentives for employers to comply with the law. As a result, OSHA's limited resources will focus on the most dangerous work sites. Rather than offering more mandates and punitive sanctions, this bill rewards employers that establish effective health and safety programs or that utilize certified, private sector safety and health professionals by exempting these employers from regular, programmed OSHA inspections. In this way, OSHA may concentrate its efforts on the most dangerous workplaces. OSHA must use its resources efficiently. In addition, the bill reduces penalties for paperwork and other nonserious violations. OSHA must concentrate on serious hazards and not on posting requirements and paperwork. Mr. President, the administration has already endorsed many of the reforms in this proposal in their Reinventing Government report. I applaud those efforts and will assist the Labor Department as we move toward our common goal of improved safety. Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, the budget reconciliation legislation passed by the House of Representatives includes a measure that would generate approximately $10 billion in tax revenue by doing away with penalties Congress imposed in 1990 on pension fund withdrawals. The House proposal allows companies to withdraw so-called excess funds from pension plans for any purpose, without informing plan participants or beneficiaries. As my colleagues know, the Senate on October 27 voted overwhelmingly to remove a similar provision from the Senate reconciliation legislation. While the Senate reversion provision was more narrowly tailored in many respects than its companion in the House bill, 94 members of this body voted to remove it. The reason that members of this body rejected that proposal so resoundingly, I believe, is because even the more modest provisions contained in the Senate bill would have represented a significant shift in pension policy. Moreover, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources Committee has not considered fully the ramifications of such a change. And those ramifications are, potentially, tremendous. There are approximately 22,000 pension plans covering 11 million workers and 2 million retirees that have assets in excess of 125 percent of current liability, and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the pension reversion provisions contained in both the House and Senate bills could result in the removal of tens of billions of dollars in surplus assets from these plans. The last time Congress did address the reversion issue, we acted decisively to enact strong measures to protect workers' pensions. In response to a wave of corporate takeovers and pension raids in the 1980s, Congress in 1990 imposed a 50 percent excise tax on pension fund reversions, except in limited circumstances. The idea was to make it costly for companies to take assets from their pension plans. And, in fact, the raids on assets ceased almost entirely. Before this change, however, about $20 billion was siphoned from pension funds in just a few years, many pension plans were terminated, and thousands of workers saw their pensions replaced by risky annuities that in many cases provided lower benefits. Let me be clear. There may be valid reasons to reconsider this policy. I believe strongly, however, that any changes in this area, and of this magnitude, should be made based on sound pension policy and not to satisfy budgetary demands. Therefore, I do not believe that changes to the current pension reversion policy should be included in budget reconciliation and I strongly urge the Senate conferees to insist on the Senate position. Having said that, Mr. President, I realize the difficult task ahead for all budget conferees. While the Finance Committee budget conferees have a strong vote to bolster the Senate position, I realize that the House will be equally insistent. If pension reversion provisions are to be included in the final reconciliation package, they should be carefully and conservatively constructed to ensure--above all--that each pension plan retains a cushion sufficient to weather changes in the current business climate, and ultimately to meet its obligations to participants and retirees. In this regard, I would like to associate myself with the very excellent and thoughtful remarks made on October 26 by Representative Harris W. Fawell. Representative Fawell is one of the most knowledgeable Members of the House on issues regarding employee benefits, and he has been an outspoken leader on the issue of pension reversions. Because the threshold beyond which assets may be withdrawn under the House proposal can be less than the threshold of assets required in the event of an actual plan termination, the House proposal effectively would allow even companies in bankruptcy to terminate a plan or remove funds from a plan with no guarantee that the remaining assets would be sufficient to pay for all plan benefits. This clearly is unacceptable. To ensure that pension assets are as safe as possible, it is essential that the formula for allowing employers to remove funds from pension trusts be based on the most conservative of actuarial principles. Therefore, I believe companies should be required to use a minimum asset cushion based on the greater of 125 percent of termination liability based on PBGC assumptions, rather than current liability, or accrued liability, whichever is greater. To further ensure that pensions are secure, companies must be required to use conservative actuarial assumptions for interest, mortality, and expected retirement based on the guidelines issued by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC]. I realize some would prefer to leave this calculation to the discretion of a company's actuary. However, I do not believe it is prudent to allow absolute discretion without more fully considering the possible risks that may result from allowing the use of differing assumptions. For example, the PBGC estimates that a plan whose current liability is 125 percent funded may in fact be less than 100 percent funded for purposes of its liability at plan termination. While the PBGC calculations may not be perfect, the risk to participants and taxpayers from an underfunded plan dictates that companies taking reversions rely on these assumptions. In addition, there should be real limits both on the use of excess pension funds, and on the types of situations in which companies are allowed to take reversions. For example, a company generally should not be allowed to withdraw funds for new plant and equipment while it leaves another pension plan underfunded or fails to meet its obligations toward a defined contribution plan. Nor should a company in bankruptcy be allowed to take a reversion without further protections. Finally, as the Senate provision originally provided, plan participants and beneficiaries must be given notice of pension withdrawals in advance, and must be afforded all the protections normally provided under title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA]. Mr. President, let me emphasize again that I strongly prefer that no changes be made in this area--at least until such changes can be properly considered by the Labor Committee. But if, and when, such changes are to be made, they must be crafted carefully and conservatively to protect participants, retirees, and taxpayers; they must include protections normally provided to participants and retirees [[Page S 16831]] under title I of ERISA; and, most importantly, they must be premised on principles of sound, long-term pension policy instead of temporary revenue generation. Because of the extreme complexity of this issue, it is difficult to believe that all aspects have been appropriately considered. To cite just a few examples, there may need to be special consideration given to employee contribution plans, and to plans covering a very small number of participants. Neither the House nor the Senate proposals take these situations into consideration. In closing, therefore, I would like my colleagues to know that the Labor and Human Resources Committee may very well consider the issue of pension reversions early next year. Should a pension reversion proposal emerge from the House-Senate reconciliation conference that varies markedly from the goals I have outlined here, there is a much greater likelihood that the Labor and Human Resources Committee will revisit this issue. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, if I could have 4 minutes.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I heard earlier today on the floor that those of us who would support the amendment to commit to the Judiciary Committee are not willing to take a stand. I would like to just say that I do not believe that is the case. This has always been a very difficult and troubling issue. But most of us have taken a stand. For myself, I have always believed abortion should be legal. I also think there should be restrictions. But I have always been really very concerned when the life of the mother and the life and health of the mother are at stake. In Kansas, we have a law which bans third trimester abortions except for the health and the life of the mother. I do not have a problem with that personally, and I support the Kansas law, but there is an exception for the life and the health of the mother. Those are rare cases, and they should be rare cases. It was debated here earlier between Senator Exon and Senator Smith about whether there really is an exception for the life of the mother. I would suggest there is not an exception for the life of the mother. There is an affirmative defense after the doctor has been charged with criminal action. The burden of proof then would be on the doctor, as I understand it, at that point. So there is not an exception. There is merely a matter of legal procedure with affirmative defense. I believe that is an important distinction, Madam President, because I think we here in the Congress cannot get into trying to determine medical procedures, no matter how tragic it appears. That should be left to the medical community, and with the consultation of the mother, the family, and the doctor. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Dodd and Senator Jeffords, to introduce the ERISA Clarification Act of 1995. This legislation is designed to protect pension plan participants and beneficiaries by removing the threat of retroactive liability based on the way life insurance companies have historically organized and managed pension assets. Importantly, the legislation would not affect any ongoing civil action. For nearly 20 years, the insurance industry relied on an interpretive bulletin issued by the Department of Labor, as well as an Internal Revenue Service ruling, which stated that assets held in an insurance company's general account were not considered plan assets under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA]. In December 1993, however, the Supreme Court ruled in John Hancock versus Harris Trust that this long-standing practice of including pension assets as part of a general account could violate certain provisions of ERISA. The Court recognized that its decision created the possibility of serious disruptions in the way pension assets were managed. As such, it commented that problems arising from the decision should be addressed legislatively or administratively. The Department of Labor is working closely with all parties to develop rules, consistent with Harris Trust, for dealing with prospective insurance company activities. However, without additional legislative authority, the Department of Labor may be unable to grant protection for retroactive activities which might expose insurance companies to significant liability and threaten the security of pension assets. Mr. President, in the nearly 20 years before the Supreme Court's decision in Harris Trust--and in the 2 years since that decision--there has been little evidence that plan participants have been harmed by the insurance industry's long-standing practice of managing benefits, or that the insurance industry is especially prone to the problems of asset mismanagement that gave rise to ERISA. In fact, there were no enforcement proceedings initiated by the Department of Labor against insurers resulting from the mismanagement of pension assets prior to the Harris Trust decision. I believe, however, that our failure to address this issue could threaten the safety and security of pension assets by exposing the insurance industry to millions of dollars of retroactive liability. Therefore, I believe we should consider, and enact, this important legislation as quickly as possible. I look forward to working with my cosponsors, and with other Members of this body, to do so.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Dodd and Senator Jeffords, to introduce the ERISA Clarification Act of 1995. This legislation is designed to protect pension plan participants and beneficiaries by removing the threat of retroactive liability based on the way life insurance companies have historically organized and managed pension assets. Importantly, the legislation would not affect any ongoing civil action. For nearly 20 years, the insurance industry relied on an interpretive bulletin issued by the Department of Labor, as well as an Internal Revenue Service ruling, which stated that assets held in an insurance company's general account were not considered plan assets under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA]. In December 1993, however, the Supreme Court ruled in John Hancock versus Harris Trust that this long-standing practice of including pension assets as part of a general account could violate certain provisions of ERISA. The Court recognized that its decision created the possibility of serious disruptions in the way pension assets were managed. As such, it commented that problems arising from the decision should be addressed legislatively or administratively. The Department of Labor is working closely with all parties to develop rules, consistent with Harris Trust, for dealing with prospective insurance company activities. However, without additional legislative authority, the Department of Labor may be unable to grant protection for retroactive activities which might expose insurance companies to significant liability and threaten the security of pension assets. Mr. President, in the nearly 20 years before the Supreme Court's decision in Harris Trust--and in the 2 years since that decision--there has been little evidence that plan participants have been harmed by the insurance industry's long-standing practice of managing benefits, or that the insurance industry is especially prone to the problems of asset mismanagement that gave rise to ERISA. In fact, there were no enforcement proceedings initiated by the Department of Labor against insurers resulting from the mismanagement of pension assets prior to the Harris Trust decision. I believe, however, that our failure to address this issue could threaten the safety and security of pension assets by exposing the insurance industry to millions of dollars of retroactive liability. Therefore, I believe we should consider, and enact, this important legislation as quickly as possible. I look forward to working with my cosponsors, and with other Members of this body, to do so.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hatfield be made a cosponsor of this amendment.