Nancy Kassebaum

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I introduce the Student Loan Evaluation and Stabilization Act. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House by Congressman Goodling and others. The provisions of this bill are designed to accomplish four main goals: First, to cap the direct loan program at 40 percent of student loan volume; Second, to correct problems in the budget scoring process which result in an inaccurate accounting of the full costs of the direct loan program; Third, to clarify congressional intent on a number of provisions of the legislation which established the direct loan program; and Fourth, to level the playing field with respect to direct loans and guaranteed loans so that they can be evaluated based on real differences in the administration, efficiency, and effectiveness between the two programs. It is no secret that I have serious reservations and concerns about the direct loan program enacted into law last Congress in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, otherwise known as OBRA 1993. I am troubled that the President is proposing a further expansion of this program in his fiscal year 1996 budget request. This proposal, which would institute 100 percent direct lending by academic year 1997- 98, amounts to a total Federal takeover of a successful public/private sector partnership--the Student Loan Program. This approach stands in stark contrast to the ``reinventing'' Government message promoted by Vice President Gore, where the focus is on privatizing more Federal functions and reducing the size of the Federal Government. I can support a demonstration of a direct loan program, but I believe that the small 5-percent demonstration included in the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1992 was adequate. I believe that OBRA 1993 went far beyond a demonstration in allowing for the eventual replacement of 60 percent of the Federal guaranteed student loan program with a direct loan program. Thus, my legislation would cap the direct lending program at the level specified in current law for the second year of the program-- permitting up to 40 percent of the total student loan volume to be made through direct Government loans. All schools which signed participation agreements with the Department of Education in 1994 to enter the program in July of this year will be able to enter the program, but the program will not expand beyond this level until Congress authorizes such an expansion. Restoring the direct loan program to a more appropriate demonstration level will allow for a more thoughtful evaluation and comparison of the guaranteed Federal Family Education Loan [FFEL] Program and the Federal Direct Student Loan [FDSL] Programs. It will allow both programs to operate with continued stability until Congress has enough information to determine which program is more effective and cost-efficient for students, institutions of higher education, and taxpayers. Through the reconciliation process, the 103d Congress made a substantial change in the student loan program without the benefit of comprehensive hearings or debate or of any evaluation results of the direct loan demonstration included in the 1992 higher education amendments. This change was made in order to take advantage of the current budget treatment of direct loans--which produces an inaccurate picture of its true budgetary consequences because certain direct loan costs are excluded in the scoring. These distortions have been well-documented by the Congressional Budget Office. It is unfortunate that serious policy decisions were driven by a budget process which hid the true costs of this program. As evidence of this shell game, the Department of Education has criticized the companion bill introduced by Representative Goodling stating that it would increase costs or budget outlays by $4.9 billion because the bill would change the budget scoring process. The Department's analysis notes that this change in the scoring process ``does not change the long-term cost of the Direct Loan program, it only changes when those costs are scored for budgetary purposes.'' This analysis illustrates the frustrating situation we face in getting a handle on the real costs of direct lending. What the materials developed by the Department say, in effect, is that current scoring practices undercount $4.9 billion in costs for the current direct loan program! Moving to 100 percent direct lending to claim more savings, as proposed by the President, will only compound the problem. We cannot and should not continue to operate in this type of budgetary Fantasyland. The Department's criticism is also disingenuous because a change in scoring would not increase costs or force the Congress to pay for the scoring change. It would simply allow the direct and guaranteed student loan programs to be scored in the same manner so we can truly compare the costs of the two programs. Therefore, I have included in this legislation an amendment to the Congressional Budget Act that would provide a more accurate comparison of direct and guaranteed student loans. The bill also clarifies congressional intent with respect to several provisions of the direct loan authorization legislation. Specifically: First, my legislation specifies that direct consolidation loans are intended to be offered only to students with guaranteed loans who cannot obtain consolidation loans or income-contingent repayment from participating guaranteed loan lenders. This clarification is important, as the administration is in the process of developing a plan that could result in transferring millions of dollars worth of guaranteed loans into the direct loan program through the direct consolidation loan program. The magnitude of this program, as well as the circumstances under which the administration envisions it would apply, goes far beyond congressional intent in providing authority for consolidation loans. Second, the bill makes clear that Department officials must calculate default rates for direct lending schools just as they do for guaranteed loan schools. To date, Department officials have not indicated how they will calculate default rates for direct loan schools or for students that select income-contingent loan repayment. Many schools with high or rising default rates entered the direct loan program because they saw this as a way to escape penalties for high default rates or to reduce their default rates. Third, in order to determine the effect of income-contingent repayment on institutional cohort default rates, the bill also requires the Department to report various data on loans being repaid through such repayment. Finally, the bill clarifies certain provisions of the law which the Department has interpreted and implemented in a way that gives direct lending an edge over the guaranteed loan program. True comparisons between the two programs are not possible with such differences. Thus, my bill levels Having described what my bill does, I would also like to clarify what the bill does not do. First, the changes that I am proposing will have no effect on student access to Federal loans, on the costs of those loans to students, or on the amount that students may borrow. There is a widespread misconception that the direct loan program offers lower fees and interest rates than those available to guaranteed loan borrowers. This is simply not the case. The issue in this debate is who should be making the loans and providing the capital--the Federal Government or the private sector. The issue is not the availability or cost of loans to students. Second, my legislation will not reduce the number of repayment options available to students. The repayment options available to students in the guaranteed loan program are virtually identical to those in the direct loan program. Students have multiple repayment options available to them in both programs--including options to repay over longer periods of time or to make smaller initial payments which gradually increase over time as earnings increase. In fact, my bill will increase the number of repayment options available by permitting students in the guaranteed loan program to repay their loans based on their incomes--an option now available only to students participating in the direct loan program. I would hope that students would exercise caution in selecting this option, given that it could greatly increase the amount they end up repaying. However, I feel the option should be made available to both guaranteed and direct loan student borrowers--many of whom may otherwise default on their loans. As the legislative process continues, I will be keeping an open mind to other program changes designed to maximize the benefits of private sector participation in the Federal student lending program while holding down the costs to taxpayers. These changes could include steps such as increased risk-sharing by lenders and guaranty agencies-- coupled with relief from burdensome and unnecessary regulations. It is my hope that Congress can act promptly to correct the problems I have identified, so that decisions regarding Federal student loans can be made on the basis of sound policy rather than on flawed budget scoring procedures. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts yielding for a few moments so I can weigh in and offer my observations on the constitutional amendment that we have been debating over the past several weeks. During these debates, I think we have heard some very thoughtful comments, both pro and con, on this important issue. This debate, in some ways, seems a fitting symbol for the amendment itself which involves a great deal of talk without any specific action. As many of my colleagues know, I have long been an opponent of this proposed change in the Constitution of the United States. I have said it would not get us 1 cent closer to a balanced budget. I have contended that it would invite evasive accounting and legal gymnastics. I have expressed concern that it would open a whole new frontier for judicial review. These concerns are not without basis and actual experience. I am sure we all remember the lengths we went to in order to get around the provisions of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act and other abbreviated attempts at deficit reduction. We remember how, in the wake of the savings and loan crisis, the Resolution Trust Corporation was created, masking billions of dollars from budget totals. Even for this very amendment, we have left definitions of crucial language open to reinterpretation. Today's outlays may become tomorrow's ``working capital.'' I think many of my colleagues will also remember that in the past, I have referred to this amendment as a sham and a gimmick. I do not believe it is the panacea to a sound fiscal policy. It has been highly effective, however, in both roles by preventing us from focusing on the real choices that must be made in the Federal budget and serving as a nearly annual diversion that allows us to talk about balanced budgets while avoiding the clear and urgent need to adopt a sound fiscal policy. This may sound, Mr. President, as if I am leading up to expressing a vote against a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. But this year, I intend to vote for final passage of the balanced budget amendment. I do so not as a result of the change in my views or beliefs or because of some revelation that this amendment does not suffer from the flaws that troubled me in the past. Instead, I will vote for this amendment this year simply and solely to eliminate it as an excuse for not cutting spending. We have been debating this amendment for more than a decade, constantly arguing about a change in the Constitution that would force us somehow to do what we all know eventually must be done. If this seems like a backhanded endorsement to this amendment, it certainly is the case. All of the arguments that I have made in the past and many of the arguments that have been made in the last few weeks are, in my mind, still valid. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the arguments against this amendment and my concern about casual changes in the Constitution are rendered almost irrelevant by another simple fact of our budget life. That fact is that every day our Government issues scraps of paper marked IOU that are themselves becoming a deadly weight not only to future generations but to the Constitution itself. This year, we will issue almost $500 million a day in IOU's. Interest is piling up alongside those IOU's high enough to consume 15 percent of our spending. To put that in perspective, the budget we received a couple of weeks ago calls for us to spend almost as much money next year in interest as on defense. If only that meant our world had become peaceful and safe. Instead, what it means is that we have put our grandchildren in debt and the future of our Government in danger. Mr. President, I believe it is time to stop debating this amendment. It is time to pass it, get it out of the way, move on to the real issue, which is how to balance our Government's income with its expenditures, how to lay out a sound fiscal policy every year. If this amendment works, then I will be glad to admit that I was wrong to ever oppose it. I certainly hope it serves the purpose for which it was intended. If it does not work, then it will no longer be available as an excuse for failure to achieve sound fiscal policy. That, Mr. President, is my reason for supporting this constitutional amendment to balance the budget and why I believe it is important for us in the Senate to pass it this year. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of the 75th anniversary of the founding of the League of Women Voters. Across the country, the League of Women Voters has presented women the opportunity to study national, State, and local issues without the spin of outside interest groups of one kind or another. A nonpartisan organization, the league has played a historic role in not only the women's suffrage movement, but in a variety of issues including child labor law, education, and environmental concerns. As a woman from the State of Kansas, I believe it is important to recognize the league's efforts to reach out to women from rural areas. Providing a forum for honest discussions, with a concentration on the facts rather than prejudiced thought, the league has proven an inspiration and an awakening for many. The league encourages women to think analytically and independently, creating opportunities to lead discussions, present the pros and cons of an issue, and learn practical use of parliamentary principles. As a result, the league has instilled in many women the belief that their contributions and opinions can and do make a difference. More importantly, however, is the realization that world issues, no matter how complex, can be understood and discussed by ordinary people. Our current political climate includes and welcomes the participation of women at all levels of national debate and government. This is a sharp contrast from the early days of the League of Women Voters. Today, I imagine that many young women find it difficult to comprehend that women's suffrage was even an issue at the time. And, although I believe this means we have made progress, I also feel it is important to remember our history. We owe a debt of gratitude to the League of Women Voters for encouraging women everywhere to help bring this about. Freeing women of all educational backgrounds to believe they could study significant issues is a gift the league has given to women all over America. the 75th anniversary of the league of women voters

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I recently received a copy of a speech delivered February 3 by Brian Atwood, Director of the Agency for International Development. He outlines several thoughts on directions for U.S. assistance in Africa. In light of the current debate over U.S. foreign assistance programs in general, and particularly in Africa, I thought my colleagues would find Mr. Atwood's comments useful. I ask that the text of Mr. Atwood's remarks be included in the Record at this point.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, the rules of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources were approved in an executive session held on January 18, 1995. Pursuant to rule XXVI, section 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit the rules of the committee for publication in the Record. The rules follow: Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources (Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Chairman) rules of procedure (as agreed to) Rule 1.--Subject to the provisions of rule XXVI, paragraph 5, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, regular meetings of the committee shall be held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building. The chairman may, upon proper notice, call such additional meetings as he may deem necessary. Rule 2.--The chairman of the committee or of a subcommittee, or if the chairman is not present, the ranking majority member present, shall preside at all meetings. Rule 3.--Meetings of the committee or a subcommittee, including meetings to conduct hearings, shall be open to the public except as otherwise specifically provided in subsections (b) and (d) of rule 26.5 of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Rule 4.--Subject to paragraph (b), one-third of the membership of the committee, actually present, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of trnasacting business. Any quorum of the committee which is composed of less than a majority of the members of the committee shall include at least one member of the majority and one member of the minority. (b) A majority of the members of a subcommittee, actually present, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business: provided, no measure or matter shall be ordered reported unless such majority shall include at least one member of the minority who is a member of the subcommittee. If, at any subcommittee meeting, a measure or matter cannot be ordered reported because of the absence of such a minority member, the measure or matter shall lay over for a day. If the presence of a member of the minority is not then obtained, a majority of the members of the subcommittee, actually present, may order such measure or matter reported. (c) No measure or matter shall be ordered reported from the committee or a subcommittee unless a majority of the committee or subcommittee is actually present at the time such action is taken. Rule 5.--With the approval of the chairman of the committee or subcommittee, one member thereof may conduct public hearings other than taking sworn testimony. Rule 6.--Proxy voting shall be allowed on all measures and matters before the committee or a subcommittee if the absent member has been informed of the matter on which he is being recorded and has affirmatively requested that he be so recorded. While proxies may be voted on a motion to report a measure or matter from the committee, such a motion shall also require the concurrence of a majority of the members who are actually present at the time such action is taken. The committee may poll any matters of committee business as a matter of unanimous consent; provided that every member is polled and every poll consists of the following two questions: (1) Do you agree or disagree to poll the proposal; and (2) Do you favor or oppose the proposal. Rule 7.--There shall be prepared and kept a complete transcript or electronic recording adequate to fully record the proceedings of each committee or subcommittee meeting or conference whether or not such meetings or any part thereof is closed pursuant to the specific provisions of subsections (b) and (d) of rule 26.5 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, unless a majority of said members vote to forgo such a record. Such records shall contain the vote cast by each member of the committee or subcommittee on any question on which a ``yea and nay'' vote is demanded, and shall be available for inspection by any committee member. The clerk of the committee, or the clerk's designee, shall have the responsibility to make appropriate arrangements to implement this rule. Rule 8.--The committee and each subcommittee shall undertake, consistent with the provisions of rule XXVI, paragraph 4, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, to issue public announcement of any hearing it intends to hold at least one week prior to the commencement of such hearing. Rule 9.--The committee or a subcommittee shall, so far as practicable, require all witnesses heard before it to file written statements of their proposed testimony at least 24 hours before a hearing, unless the chairman and the ranking minority member determine that there is good cause for failure to so file, and to limit their oral presentation to brief officer at any hearing is authorized to limit the time of each witness appearing before the committee or a subcommittee. The committee or a subcommittee shall, as far as practicable, utilize testimony previously taken on bills and measures similar to those before it for consideration. Rule 10.--Should a subcommittee fail to report back to the full committee on any measure within a reasonable time, the chairman may withdraw the measure from such subcommittee and report that fact to the full committee for further disposition. Rule 11.--No subcommittee may schedule a meeting or hearing at a time designated for a hearing or meeting of the full committee. No more than one subcommittee executive meeting may be held at the same time. Rule 12.--It shall be the duty of the chairman in accordance with section 133(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, to report or cause to be reported to the Senate, any measure or recommendation approved by the committee and to take or cause to be taken, necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote in the Senate. Rule 13.--Whenever a meeting of the committee or subcommittee is closed pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b) or (d) of rule 26.5 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no person other than members of the committee, members of the staff of the committee, and designated assistants to members of the committee shall be permitted to attend such closed session, except by special dispensation of the committee or subcommittee or the chairman thereof. Rule 14.--The chairman of the committee or a subcommittee shall be empowered to adjourn any meeting of the committee or a subcommittee if a quorum is not present within fifteen minutes of the time schedule for such meeting. Rule 15. Whenever a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part thereof shall be before the committee or a subcommittee for final consideration, the clerk shall place before each member of the committee or subcommittee a print of the statute or the part or section thereof to be amended or replaced showing by stricken-through type, the part or parts to be omitted and in italics, the matter proposed to be added. Rule 16.--An appropriate opportunity shall be given the minority to examine the proposed text of committee reports prior to their filing or publication. In the event there are supplemental, minority, or additional views, an appropriate opportunity shall be given the majority to examine the proposed text prior to filing or publication. Rule 17.--(a) The committee, or any subcommittee, may issue subpoenas, or hold hearings to take sworn testimony or hear subpoenaed witnesses, only if such investigative activity has been authorized by majority vote of the committee. (b) For the purpose of holding a hearing to take sworn testimony or hear subpoenaed witnesses, three members of the committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum: provided, with the concurrence of the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee or subcommittee, a single member may hear subpoenaed witnesses or take sworn testimony. (c) The committee may, by a majority vote, delegate the authority to issue subpoenas to the chairman of the committee or a subcommittee, or to any member designated by such chairman. Prior to the issuance of each subpoena, the ranking minority member of the committee or subcommittee, and any other member so requesting, shall be notified regarding the identity of the person to whom it will be issued and the nature of the information sought and its relationship to the authorized investigative activity, except where the chairman of the committee or subcommittee, in consultation with the ranking minority member, determines that such notice would unduly impede the investigation. All information obtained pursuant to such investigative activity shall be made available as promptly as possible to each member of the committee requesting same, or to any assistant to a member of the committee designated by such member in writing, but the use of any such information is subject to restrictions imposed by the rules of the Senate. Such information, to the extent that it is relevant to the investigation shall, if requested by a member, be summarized in writing as soon as practicable. Upon the request of any member, the chairman of the committee or subcommittee shall call an executive session to discuss such investigative activity or the issuance of any subpoena in connection therewith. (d) Any witness summoned to testify at a hearing or any witness giving sworn testimony, may be accompanied by counsel of his own choosing who shall be permitted, while the witness is testifying, to advise him of his legal rights. (e) No confidential testimony taken or confidential material presented in an executive hearing, or any report of the proceedings of such an executive hearing, shall be made public, either in whole or in part or by way of summary, unless authorized by a majority of the members of the committee or subcommittee. Rule 18.--Presidential nominees shall submit a statement of their background and financial interests, including the financial interests of their spouse and children living in their household, on a form approved by the committee which shall be sworn to as to its completeness and accuracy. The committee form shall be in two parts-- (I) information relating to employment, education and background of the nominee relating to the position to which the individual is nominated, and which is to be made public; and (II) information relating to financial and other background of the nominee, to be made public when the committee determines that such information bears directly on the nominee's qualifications to hold the position to which the individual is nominated. Information relating to background and financial interests (parts I and II) shall not be required of (a) candidates for appointment and promotion in the Public Health Service Corps; and (b) nominees for less than full-time appointments to councils, commissions or boards when the committee determines that some or all of the information is not relevant to the nature of the position. Information relating to other background and financial interests (part II) shall not be required of any nominee when the committee determines that it is not relevant to the nature of the position. Committee action on a nomination, including hearings or meetings to consider a motion to recommend confirmation, shall not be initiated until at least five days after the nominee submits the form required by this rule unless the chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, waives this waiting period. Rule 19.--Subject to statutory requirements imposed on the committee with respect to procedure, the rules of the committee may be changed, modified, amended or suspended at any time; provided, not less than a majority of the entire membership so determine at a regular meeting with due notice, or at a meeting specifically called for that purpose. Rule 20.--In addition to the foregoing, the proceedings of the committee shall be governed by the Standing Rules of the Senate and the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended. [Excerpts from the Standing Rules of the Senate] rule xxv--standing committees 1. The following standing committees shall be appointed at the commencement of each Congress, and shall continue and have the power to act until their successors are appointed, with leave to report by bill or otherwise on matters within their respective jurisdictions: * * * * * (m)(l) Committee on Labor and Human Resources, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects: 1. Measures relating to education, labor, health, and public welfare. 2. Aging. 3. Agricultural colleges. 4. Arts and humanities. 5. Biomedical research and development. 6. Child labor. 7. Convict labor and the entry of goods made by convicts into interstate commerce. 8. Domestic activities of the American National Red Cross. 9. Equal employment opportunity. 10. Gallaudet College, Howard University, and Saint Elizabeths Hospital. 11. Handicapped individuals. 12. Labor standards and labor statistics. 13. Mediation and arbitration of labor disputes. 14. Occupational safety and health, including the welfare of miners. 15, Private pension plans. 16. Public health. 17. Railway labor and retirement. 18. Regulation of foreign laborers. 19. Student loans. 20. Wages and hours of labor. (2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a comprehensive basis, matters, relating to health, education and training, and public welfare, and report thereon from time to time.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, the distinguished Republican leader, Senator Dole, joins with me today in offering this bill to address an injustice that has developed out of current law. The bill would repeal a restriction in the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979 pertaining to air carrier service at Dallas' Love Field. There is now broad recognition of the anticompetitive situation that has developed because of this section of law, and it is our intent to resolve the unfairness of this situation. The restriction which this bill seeks to repeal was originally passed to protect the then-relatively new Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport [DFW] and ensure that commercial air carriers moved from Love Field to the new airport. Today, DFW is the third busiest airport in the country. The gates at DFW are full, and planes wait in long lines for takeoff. It is clear that DFW has reached a point where it no longer needs to be protected from competition. Under current law, commercial air carriers are prohibited from providing service between Dallas' Love Field and points located outside of Texas or its four surrounding States. This effectively limits travel into and out of this airfield to destinations only in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and New Mexico. Flights originating from any other State must fly into the Dallas-Fort Worth airport in order to have access to the highly traveled Dallas area. This limitation on flights into Love Field is arbitrary and, in many cases, forces passengers to pay artificial and unreasonably high air fares. Moreover, the restriction causes unnecessary delay and inconvenience for passengers attempting to fly into or out of Love Field from cities outside Texas and its four contiguous States. The criteria the current law uses to restrict flights into Love Field--that a flight must originate in Texas or one of its contiguous States--are not based on any standard appropriate for the airline industry. It is not based on the number of miles flown. It is not based on the size of the city served. It is not based on the amount of noise generated by an aircraft. Instead, it is based on State boundaries that were in place long before the Wright brothers began flying airplanes. Today, planes are allowed to fly directly from Love Field to El Paso which is 576 miles from Dallas. Yet, direct flights are prohibited between Love Field and many cities which are much closer to Dallas, such as St. Louis, Kansas City, Memphis, Birmingham, and Wichita. This makes no sense. Mr. President, a great deal has been written recently about unwanted and unnecessary Government rules and regulations. People are frustrated by Government rules that are out of touch with reality, that lack common sense. I think the Wright amendment is a prime example of why so many people have lost confidence in their Government. In addition to being a law based on policial concerns rather than practical realities, the Wright amendment has distorted the free market. For a number of Americans, the restrictions on Love Field have forced them to pay more to travel to Dallas than their neighbors. Again, this is regardless of the flight distance or the size of the city served by the flight. The reason for this absurd situation is that the one airline which serves Love Field is the low-cost carrier for the market, Southwest Airlines. In those cases where Southwest is allowed to compete with the major airlines for direct flights to Dallas, the cost of a ticket to Dallas is dramatically cheaper than when restrictions prevent Southwest from offering competitive flights. Another effect of the Love Field restrictions is that they work a terrible inconvenience for those travelers located outside of Texas and the contiguous States who choose to take a nondirect flight to Dallas on Southwest Airlines. Passengers in this situation are not allowed to buy a round-trip ticket to Dallas on a flight which has a stop-over in a city that meets the Love Field restrictions. Instead, these passengers must buy two round-trip tickets. One round-trip ticket to a city in Texas or one of the contiguous States and another from that city to Dallas. This requires the travelers not only to change planes in the connecting city but to collect their baggage and recheck it to Dallas. The unnecessary inconvenience of having to collect and recheck baggage can be especially difficult for the elderly, the disabled, or those traveling with small children. To allow this situation to continue would be to condone anticompetitive law and to encourage discrimination against many for the benefit of a few. I believe it is essential to encourage competition within the transportation community in order to protect the interests of the traveling public. The case with Love Field is no different than that of all the other small airfields across the country, none of which is restricted based on their location. Love Field has been subject to this unique statute for more than 15 years, and it big time to close this loophole.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senators Jeffords, Gregg, and Gorton, the Teamwork for Employees And Management [TEAM] Act, a bill to encourage worker-management cooperation. Mr. President, when I served many years ago on the school board in Maize, KS, we frequently met on an informal basis with teachers to discuss problems the teachers faced in the classroom. The teachers had an important perspective to share, and we addressed their concerns. Sometimes we agreed with them and implemented their recommendations, and sometimes we agreed to disagree. But the important thing was that we felt free to exchange information. School boards and teachers are governed by State law and not Federal law, so we did not face the problems on the school board that private sector workers and supervisors face today. We had the benefit of being able to work cooperatively with our teachers, and I continue to believe that we improved the quality of education for our students and enhanced the quality of work life for our teachers. Mr. President, our current Federal labor laws do not allow this sort of cooperative effort, because our labor laws assume that labor and management have an adversarial relationship. This may have been true 50 years ago, but today, employers recognize that productivity and efficiency improve when workers operate in partnership with management, and that partnership occurs best in a cooperative rather than an adversarial environment. Yet our labor laws currently prohibit these cooperative efforts. Mr. President, the TEAM Act responds to a National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] decision in 1992 called Electromation that has had significant consequences for attempts to improve cooperation between workers and employers. Specifically, the NLRB held that employer- employee committees, where workers met with management to discuss attendance, compensation and no-smoking policies, violated the National Labor Relations Act's [NLRA] prohibition against ``employer-dominated'' labor organizations. The TEAM Act amends our Federal labor laws to permit these types of voluntary programs to continue. The legislation allows employers and employees to meet together to address issues of mutual interest, including issues related to quality, productivity, and efficiency, as long as the committees or other joint programs do not engage in collective bargaining. I believe that our Federal labor laws should not stand in the way of work place cooperative efforts, such as quality circles and employee involvement programs. Our workers like to have input on their working conditions and our international competitors use employee involvement to improve plant productivity. I urge my colleagues to support the TEAM Act. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Dorgan's amendment, which seeks to address burdensome metric mandates. As my colleague from North Dakota has stated, metric requirements impose serious burdens on State, local, and tribal governments and offer a perfect example of the careless practice that the underlying legislation seeks to address. I became involved in the metric debate during the last Congress, when I introduced legislation that would have prohibited Federal agencies from requiring State and local governments to convert highway signs to metric units. At that time, the Federal Highway Administration was considering plans which would have, in effect, forced financially strapped State and local governments to cancel or postpone highway and infrastructure improvements in favor of metric sign conversion. Literally thousands of Kansans contacted me to protest this unnecessary and costly change and to ask why we in Washington write laws and then pass the costs along to State and local governments. Fortunately, their opposition and our efforts in Congress were successful in convincing the Federal Highway Administration to abandon its plans for metric sign conversion. While I was pleased with that decision, I remain concerned about the prospect of similar metric mandates and believe that we must act to ensure that their effect on State, local, and tribal governments is fully understood. This amendment would accomplish that goal, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may enter into this debate for a moment from a little different angle. I have enormous respect for the Senator from Vermont, who has just spoken with great dedication to the issue of education. He has devoted a great deal of time to the issue, both when he was in the other body as a Member of Congress and since he has been in the Senate and is now chairman of the Education Subcommittee of the Labor Committee. I also can understand where the Senator from Washington is coming from in his concerns about the model national history standards which have been developed with Federal funds. However, as the Senator from Vermont has pointed out, they have not been adopted or certified as national standards yet. There has been a lot of controversy about these standards as they have been proposed--controversy which, I may say, could have been anticipated. I was troubled when we first started down the path of providing Federal funding for the development of national standards. I would like to note that standards in various subject areas have been developed by professionals in the field, not by Federal employees as some may think. However, where Federal moneys are involved, there is often misunderstanding about the nature of the Government's involvement. I am sure that developing these standards was very difficult for these professionals. It is far easier to develop standards, say in the field of mathematics or science, because there is more preciseness in both of those fields. When you get to history, however, so much revolves around a teacher's interpretation of the material that they may have in front of them. So I think when you get into particular areas of study like history, that it becomes much more difficult to develop standards on which there is going to be agreement. Whether it is with the particular standards we are discussing now or a totally different set of standards, I think you would find just as many people with concerns about them. Although these are voluntary standards, as has been repeatedly emphasized whenever we have had these debates, this is a point which often gets lost. One reason I opposed the Goals 2000 legislation which was enacted last year is that it took Federal activities in this area yet another step further by including an authorization for a national council to review and endorse the national standards. There is certainly a difference between voluntary national standards and mandatory Federal standards--but this is a distinction which is generally lost when such standards are put forward, particularly when they are likely to come before a group such as the national council which is charged with reviewing them. As one who believes strongly that the strength of our education system lies in its local base and community commitment, I have not felt it wise to expand Federal involvement into areas traditionally handled by States and localities. I will support the Gorton amendment due to my concern about Federal involvement in national standards, even voluntary ones. At the same time, I believe the real issue is far broader than the current controversy over the history standards. Prohibiting a federally authorized council from certifying a particular set of voluntary standards is not the real answer. The real problem is that we have established in legislation such a group--the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, or NESIC--in the first place. In the near future, I will be introducing legislation to repeal NESIC. My legislation would get the Federal Government out of the loop in an area which I believe is best handled by States and localities. Many of our States are already developing standards that the teachers and educators in the field of history feel is important for the schools in their States. But those States do not need to have a Federal seal of approval for those standards, voluntary or not. That is why I believe we may be missing the heart of this debate. Nevertheless, I think the Senator from Washington has addressed a real concern regarding the model national history standards that have been developed with Federal funds. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may respond. I must say that I am very sensitive to the concerns the Senator has with an industry that is facing some real turmoil in his State and other States. I realize it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, and it applies specifically to one private company. When you mention the railroad strikes, just to draw a distinction, that was a strike that affected the whole country and was of national concern. Even then we were sensitive to intrusion by Congress. The reason I went over the striker replacement issue is because you address it in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution. In many ways I would say I am sympathetic. But I do not think that we should address it here in the United States Congress. It opens every other private labor- management dispute to our wanting to try to address it from Washington and intruding on what is a private bargaining position. That is my concern. I thank the Senator from Illinois, even though I recognize Senator Simon's and Senator Moseley-Braun's interest in the issue.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I appreciate that. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Illinois as well. As he knows, I have some strong views on this issue that I would like to express. I can certainly appreciate the points of view of the Senators from Illinois, Senators Moseley-Braun and Simon. But I have to rise in strong opposition to the resolution that has been offered by the Senator from Illinois. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the resolution offered by the Senator from Illinois. The Senator's resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that Bridgestone/Firestone Tire Co. should not use permanent replacements for workers on strike in a labor dispute in Ohio, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Illinois. Mr. President, we have been through this argument on the floor, and it is well understood by most everyone here. The Congressional Accountability Act passed the House of Representatives on a unanimous vote 2 days ago, and now we are here on a late Friday afternoon with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution on an enormously important issue that does not relate in any way to the Congressional Accountability Act. I know the Senator from Illinois is well-intentioned. But this is neither the time nor the place for Congress to be considering anything other than this very important bill which is before us--the Congressional Accountability Act. The amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois is completely extraneous from the matter at hand, and for that reason alone I believe the Senate should table his amendment. Not only is the amendment inappropriate and untimely, but it is also wrong on the substance as well. Just for a moment, if I may reiterate what we have talked about before in the debate on this issue, Congress should not take sides in a private labor dispute as this amendment clearly does. We should not take sides in a private dispute. Because we have many new Members in this body, I think it might be helpful to provide a brief background on our Federal labor laws. It has been established Federal labor law for over 50 years that labor has the right to strike, and companies have the right to continue operating during the strike. On rare occasions, this may require hiring permanent replacements. These competing rights, and the risks they entail, enable the parties to settle the overwhelming number of labor disputes at the bargaining table which is the way I believe strongly they should be resolved. labor could strike at any time, for any reason, without any risk. It really disrupts completely. I would argue that the balance is a difficult one, but I think a fair balance. The compelling nature of these arguments led the Senate to defeat legislation--S. 55--during both the 102d and 103d Congress. S. 55 would have prohibited employers from hiring permanent replacements during an economic strike. So the law is clear the employers may hire permanent replacements during economic strikes. Mr. President, Congress established the private collective bargaining system to facilitate the peaceful resolution of labor disputes. We leave it to the parties to decide for themselves what a fair deal is. As difficult as it may be--and each of us has had these disputes in our own States and we wish we could do something that could bring it to a resolution, but as sure as we start down that path, we will all regret it and all the parties to those labor disputes will regret it as well. It is not for this body to decide whether Bridgestone is justified in hiring permanent replacements during the course of their current labor dispute. We are not the arbiters of labor disputes in the U.S. Senate, and we do not judge the fairness of any of the terms of a particular labor agreement. Mr. President, it is improper for the Senate to single out one company and attempt to influence a private labor dispute. Regardless of the merits on either side, we do not negotiate collective bargaining agreements in the Senate. There is a good reason for this. We would be establishing a dangerous precedent if we approved this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, because we would be opening ourselves up to debating the merits of very single labor disputes. In fact, we would see a virtual parade of labor and management groups coming to Capitol Hill seeking to gain a bargaining advantage through congressional action. We do not want to start that kind of precedent. Mr. President, I am also perplexed by the language in the resolution that compares the laws of the United States and Japan. The resolution seems to suggest that there is something wrong with Bridgestone, a Japanese-owned company, following the laws of the United States, because using permanent replacements would be illegal in Japan. Companies doing business in the United States are supposed to follow our laws. We demand that they follow our laws, whether they are owned by the Japanese or by Americans. So the fact that Japanese law does not allow permanent replacements is totally irrelevant. The irony, of course, is that often we complain that American companies export jobs overseas. In this case, a Japanese company bought an American company--Firestone--and invested billions of dollars in an American company to make it financially viable. I think we want to encourage that kind of investment.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, along with my colleagues, Senators Jeffords, Chafee, Coats, Gregg, Brown, Craig, Nickles, Cochran, Domenici, Grassley, Simpson, Warner, Pressler, and Grams, to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, an outmoded law that requires contractors performing Federal public works projects to meet prevailing wage conditions and work rules. This legislation is long overdue. Congress enacted the Davis-Bacon Act during the Depression amid concern that bidding for large Federal construction projects would lead to cut-throat competition from out-of-state contractors that would drive down local wage rates. That might have been a valid concern during the Depression, but it is no longer the case. Due to the Department of Labor's method of computing the ``prevailing'' wage, Davis-Bacon often requires Federal contractors to pay their workers at a rate considerably higher than the market rate. In addition, Davis-Bacon requires contractors to follow work rules that prevail in the locality. The public is ill-served by these wage rate and work rule restrictions. We lose the benefit of workplace innovations that improve quality and productivity, and we raise the cost of completing construction projects. Numerous studies have shown that Davis-Bacon wage inflation and work rule requirements raise Federal construction costs by 5 to 25 percent. As a result, the Davis-Bacon Act exacerbates our budget deficit by increasing Federal contracting costs by $3 billion over the 5-year budget cycle. Mr. President, construction is one of the last sectors of our economy where low-skill individuals can be trained on the job for a few months and then earn a decent living. Young men and women in the inner city, many of whom are minorities, eagerly seek this work. But Davis-Bacon's prevailing wage and work rule restrictions prevent contractors from hiring and training these young men and women, in direct contradiction to our national goal of expanding inner-city employment opportunities. This is one reason why the National League of Cities endorses Davis-Bacon repeal. Mr. President, Davis-Bacon decreases competition, raises construction costs, and diminishes employment opportunities. I urge my colleagues to support Davis-Bacon repeal, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at consolidating the numerous grant programs of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--CDC. A second goal is to examine the Federal role in disease prevention and control. The two central provisions of this proposal would strengthen our Nation's public health system by increasing Federal and State flexibility and reducing administrative costs. The primary provision would consolidate 12 different grant programs into a core functions of public health block grant. Core functions of public health are those activities which any public health department should undertake to protect and ensure the health of the public. The other key provision would combine 28 demonstration project funding streams into one flexible authority. Under this authority, CDC would address public health needs of regional and national significance through technical assistance to States and time-limited research and development projects. As many of my colleagues remember, the last legislative reorganization of the CDC grant programs occurred in 1981. At that time, the current preventive health and health services block grant was created through the combination of seven categorical grant programs. The CDC also retained its authority to conduct three categorical programs for immunizations, sexually transmitted diseases, and diabetes. Since then, Congress has acted eight different times to create narrowly defined grant programs. The risk of such narrow funding authorities is that States respond to federally legislated public health priorities rather than the actual needs of their own citizens. Fortunately, the CDC is considering how to simplify the grant making process and to consolidate many of its grant programs. Primarily, this is in response to State public health officers. They have voiced concerns about the administrative burdens and limited flexibility afforded by the 12 current funding streams. I am encouraged by the CDC's internal review of its own programs. However, I remain concerned that it will not go far enough in its attempt to consolidate these programs. As such, I offer this legislation today as one example of program consolidation which I would encourage the CDC to consider. Mr. President, to examine the Federal role in disease prevention and control, this legislation contains a provision which would have the CDC report to Congress on the benefits of its activities. Such a report would foster a review of the CDC programs. Given the changes created by this legislation, I believe this is important. Additionally, I believe such a review of CDC activities is in order given the broad mandate CDC has for both disease control and disease prevention. Historically, CDC has a role in disease prevention. This dates back to the administration of this agency by Dr. Foege. In the late 1970's he redirected CDC activities into disease prevention. This mission was again reconfirmed by the CDC under the leadership of Dr. Roper when it developed its vision statement in 1992: ``The vision of the CDC is healthy people in healthy world: through prevention.'' However, I am concerned as it carriers out its vision that CDC risks losing sight of its historic charge to combat and prevent infectious diseases. This charge dates back to the establishment of the CDC originally as the Malaria Control in War Times Area Program during the World War II. My cause for concern lies in our problem of emerging infections. This is evidenced by the tuberculosis outbreak in many of our cities and the national HIV epidemic. Concerns have been raised about my approach which I would like to address. First, some suggest that States will not use their core functions of public health block grant to address their most pressing public health problems. For instance, those involved with the current CDC community-based HIV prevention initiative question if States would continue to carry out HIV prevention programs. My legislation ensures that States would address their most pressing public health problems including HIV prevention. Under it, each State would conduct a community-based needs assessment and develop a plan. Such an assessment and the plan would be tied to the goals of Healthy People 2000 and a set of core public health indicators. I believe such a process would assure both State flexibility and accountability. Others have expressed concern that the intention of this proposal is to reduce public health funding. Although I cannot guarantee the outcome of the appropriations process, this is not my intention. In fact, the authorization of $1.1 billion for the core functions of public health block grant is consistent with the current appropriation for each of the consolidated categorical programs. Mr. President, the introduction of this proposal today should serve as the staring point for a discussion on the issue of consolidating the CDC grant programs. I intend to develop this proposal further. This legislation represents one consolidation option, there are others. I welcome a vigorous debate about the merits and flaws of the Public Health Enhancement Act of 1995. As discussion of these issues develops, I would welcome any suggestions my colleagues or others may have for improving this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that my statement, a summary of this bill, and the text of the legislation be made a part of the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation designed to revamp our current Federal job training programs. From the viewpoint of both the taxpayer and the trainee, there can be little doubt that a comprehensive overhaul is long overdue. Many Americans spoke clearly in the recent elections and said that they do not believe that the Federal Government is spending their money wisely. One of the most glaring examples of wasteful Government spending are Federal job training programs. According to the General Accounting Office, the Federal Government currently oversees 154 separate job training programs, administered by 14 different agencies, at a total cost to the taxpayers of almost $25 billion a year. These programs are hamstrung by duplication, waste, and conflicting regulations that too often leave program trainees no better off than when they started. We simply cannot keep pumping Federal dollars into this confusing maze of programs. People across the country are fed up with spending money on Government programs that make promises and then do not deliver. With a few notable exceptions, the evidence on job training failures far exceeds the successes. Last year the GAO released a report indicating that fewer than half of the 62 job training programs selected for study even bothered to check to see if participants obtained jobs after training. During the past decade, only seven of those programs were evaluated to find out whether trainees would have achieved the same outcomes without Federal assistance. There is general acknowledgement in Congress that we must act now to reform these programs. The administration has also spoken to this need, as have many of my colleagues. Last year I introduced bipartisan legislation designed to overhaul completely job training programs by essentially wiping the slate clean and starting over. The bill I am reintroducing today incorporates one of the two basic pieces of that original bill. The Job Training Consolidation Act of 1995 would grant broad waivers immediately to allow States and localities maximum flexibility to coordinate the largest Federal job training programs at the local level. This would have the immediate effect of allowing States and localities the opportunity to combine resources and tailor programs to meet current needs. For example, resources could be combined to address high priority needs of unemployed persons in a State or local community. In addition, where there is overlap, some programs could be eliminated to increase funding in other areas and improve efficiencies in the delivery of services. What I am not proposing, which was the second piece of last year's bill, is to create a national commission to study and make recommendations to Congress on consolidating all existing programs. I no longer believe that it is necessary for Congress to wait another 2 years before taking decisive action to reform these programs. Instead, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will hold hearings on January 10, 11, and 12 on the need to overhaul Federal job training programs. The hearings will outline the current state of the programs, provide state, local and private sector perspectives on job training, and elicit the opinions of a variety of experts on how to reform our scattershot array of training program into a system that will serve all individuals more effectively. As a result, I believe we will have the information necessary to make sendible determinations about the elimination or consolidation of specific programs. I intend to build upon this legislation in the next few months by introducing a comprehensive proposal to replace existing programs with a new employment and training strategy. However, I believe it is first necessary for the Committee to conduct a through review of existing programs, before a final proposal is made. The goal is a single, coherent approach to employment and training-- to assist all job-seekers in entering the workforce, gaining basic skills, or retraining for new jobs. We do not have that kind of a system today and our workers and our economy both pay the price. We need to start over, think boldly, and create a system that works for everyone. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Welfare and Medicaid Responsibility Exchange Act of 1995 with Senator Bennett and Senator Brown. When I introduced this legislation last year, debate about welfare reform was just beginning. That debate has moved to the top of the charts in both congress and the media. The history of our repeated attempts to reform welfare demonstrates that good intentions never guarantee success. If we want to succeed this time, and I believe we must, then we must go beyond patchwork, piecemeal change and fundamentally rethink our approach to helping families with children. For me, the first basic question to be addressed is not how to reform welfare but who should do the reforming. I believe a critical flaw in the present system is not only a lack of personal responsibility--it is a lack of responsibility at every level of Government. Our largest welfare programs today are hybrids of State and Federal funding and management. The States do most of the administration, within a basic framework of Federal regulation, while the Federal Government provides most of the money. The result is a hodgepodge of State and Federal rules and regulations, conflicting eligibility and benefit standards, and constant push-and-pull between State and Federal bureaucracies. This may suit the needs of Government bureaucracy. It clearly is not meeting the needs of children in poverty. The first step toward real welfare reform, I believe, is to make a clear-cut decision about who will run the plan, who will have the power to make key decisions, and who will be held responsible for the outcome. The legislation we are introducing answers that question: It would give the States complete control and responsibility for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the Food Stamp Program, and the Women, Infants and Children Nutrition Program. In order to free State funding to meet these needs, I would have the Federal Government assume a greater share of the Medicaid Program. This idea is fundamentally different from the block grant proposals which have been put forward. A block grant would continue to utilize Federal money with corresponding rules and regulations with which the States must comply--albeit fewer rules and more flexibility than the present system provides. But in the end it will With this legislation, the States will use their own money, and will carry the full responsibility for designing and operating a system which provides a safety net for low-income individuals and families. This draws a clear distinction between the role of the Federal Government and the States--a distinction which makes sense for two reasons: First, giving states both the power and the responsibility for welfare--with their own money at stake--would create powerful incentives for finding more effective ways to assist families in need. Nearly half the states already are experimenting with welfare reforms. This would give them broad freedom to test new ideas. Second, I do not think Washington can reform welfare in any meaningful, lasting way. The reality is that we cannot write a single welfare plan that makes sense for five million families in fifty different and very diverse states. Washington does not have a magic answer to the welfare problem. The Governors and State legislators have no magic solutions either, but they have the potentially critical advantage of being closer to the people involved, closer to the problems, and closer to the day-to-day realities of making welfare work. In this case, I believe proximity does matter, perhaps powerfully so. One of the most important factors in whether families succeed or fail is their connection to a community, to a network of support. For some families, this is found in relatives or friends. For others, it might be a caring caseworker, a teacher or principal, a local church, a city or county official. These human connections are not something we can legislate, and they are not something that money can buy. True welfare reform will require a renewal of local and state responsibilities for children and families in need. I believe that can only happen if the Federal Government steps aside and allows the States to get on with this work. At the same time, the Medicaid Program is badly in need of reform. Like the largest welfare programs, responsibility for both financing and administration of Medicaid is split between the State and Federal Governments. As a result, Medicaid is now a baffling maze of inconsistent standards and dramatic variations from State to State. The system sometimes leads to illogical, or even unfair, results. Some States will cover an infant up to 185 percent of poverty, while leaving his penniless father with no coverage at all. While most people believe that Medicaid provides a safety net for the poor, in reality it covers only half of those Americans living in poverty. Medicaid's design has also encouraged the Federal Government to heap costly benefit and eligibility mandates on the States. These mandates have added fuel to Medicaid costs that were already burning out of control. Medicaid costs doubled between 1989 and 1992, and have become the fastest-growing component of State budgets. The share of State revenue devoted to Medicaid has jumped from 9 percent in 1980 to nearly 20 percent today, and is expected to double again by the end of the decade. In addition, Medicaid is virtually the only source of long-term care protection in a society that is now aging faster than at any time in its history. While elderly and disabled Americans make up only 27 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries, they consume nearly 70 percent of all Medicaid costs. these 9 million Americans represent an irreducible--and rapidly growing--group of patients whose medical expenses are often too large, and of too long duration, for anyone other than the Government to pay the bill. The legislation I am introducing today will immediately begin addressing these problems. Later this year, I plan to introduce legislation to simplify the crazy-quilt of Medicaid eligibility standards, streamline the scope of benefits offered, and bring costs under control by transforming Medicaid into a more market-based system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the Record.