Nancy Kassebaum

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I agree with the ranking member of the Labor Committee on some things. But the last part of his statement I would, perhaps, have to have some question about. I yield 5 minutes, now, to the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, when I became chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs in 1981, I was asked what I knew about Africa. I responded, ``Not much.'' But since that time, either as chairman or ranking member, I have spent considerable time working on African issues and have developed a deep affinity for the continent. It is a region that is beset with many difficulties, but it also holds great promise and possibilities. I am not going to speak today, Mr. President, about current tragedies in Burundi or Rwanda or other places on the continent. But I have been questioned more and more, as I get ready to retire and will leave this chairmanship of the African subcommittee, why should we care about Africa? In this era of budget difficulties and domestic challenges, why devote resources and diplomatic energies to a region of great needs, unfamiliar cultures, and limited strategic value to the United States? Mr. President, I, for one, believe that Africa does matter to Americans, and perhaps in ways that we do not necessarily think about when we see the current headlines that emerge regarding Africa. The United States does have significant national interests on the continent. The events in Africa directly affect American citizens. In this age of instant communications, international travel, and world trade, we simply cannot afford to ignore a continent of over 660 million people and 54 countries. From infectious disease to environmental destruction, narcotics trafficking to terrorism, we live in a world where boundaries have less and less meaning. As a world leader, the United States has a responsibility--and a self-interest--in promoting peace, stability, and development in Africa. Mr. President, over the next few weeks, I will deliver a series of statements on United States interests in Africa. As I travel around the country I find a great amount of skepticism among the American public regarding foreign policy and international engagement. Those of us who believe that events on the African Continent affect United States interests must begin to make the case for why Africa matters. Today, I will begin with an issue of particular concern to me-- emerging infectious diseases. Last year, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Labor Committee on Emerging Infections: A Threat to the Health of a Nation. The focus of the hearing was on domestic vulnerability to disease, but international issues--especially those involving Africa-- surfaced again and again. It is impossible to isolate the domestic epidemiological situation from a larger global context. Microbes simply do not observe political boundaries. Mr. President, the sheer volume of human contact at the approaching turn of the century creates a situation in which no country or class is immune from the threat of disease. In 1993, over 27 million people traveled from the United States and Canada to developing countries. The incubation period of most epidemic diseases far exceeds the duration of most international flights. No state can test all entering persons for every known disease. Even secure borders cannot stop contaminated water, food, or animal vectors from transmitting microbes across boundaries. For example, international trade was the mechanism by which a strain of the Ebola virus, previously confined to central Africa, surfaced in Reston, VA, in 1989, and in Texas in 1996. The devestating effects of Ebola's hemorrhagic fever, and the mysteries surrounding its transmission, have created a sense of fear and insecurity around the world since the 1995 outbreak in Zaire. Yet Ebola represents only one of a number of new diseases which present a threat to all of mankind-- at least 30 new infectious diseases have emerged in the last 20 years. Even more familiar diseases like malaria present a cause for concern, as poor medical practices in Africa result in new, antibiotic-resistant strains of previously treatable infections. Consider this: each year, over 1,000 Americans return to the United States with malaria after spending time abroad. The mosquito that transmits malaria is still present on both coasts of the United States. Moreover, precisely because malaria has not been endemic in our country or in Europe in the late 20th century, it will be far more lethal in those regions than it is in Africa today should it be reintroduced. Our national interest in Africa's emerging and reemerging diseases extends beyond the most immediate and urgent concern of international transmission. AIDS in Africa exemplifies the economically draining impact of disease. It primarily affects young adults, the most productive segment of society, leading some experts to estimate that AIDS could cause a 2- to 3-percent reduction in the growth rates of developing countries' economies over the next 20 years. In turn, diminished purchasing power in developing country will result in diminished trade revenues and economic opportunities here at home. Traditionally, U.S. interest in tropical infectious disease has varied according to the extent of our political and military involvement overseas. It seems clear that today's heightened volume of civilian human contact makes this an obsolete strategy. We should all be conscious of the risks that are presented to us. Yet in 1989, a meeting of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene revealed that neither American agencies nor the World Health Organization were adequately prepared for an epidemic emergency. Prepackaged disease hospitals and overseas high-security laboratories do not exist, nor does a clear chain of command in such an emergency. In the 1990's, a review of CDC surveillance systems determined them to be woefully inadequate within the United States, and so haphazard as to be nonexistent abroad. Yet, information is one of the most critical elements of our epidemiological security, and surveillance and monitoring mechanisms on the African Continent are crucial to American interests. Mr. President, at the Labor Committee hearing last year, Dr. David Satcher, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, indicated that CDC received the first report of the 1994 Ebola outbreak in Zaire in May of that year, but the first case probably occurred in January. Early warning systems simply did not exist. Likewise, the National Science and Technology Council reported that African doctors saw ``slim disease,'' probably a herald of the AIDS epidemic, as early as 1962, but the dearth of technical and financial resources, as well as an absence of engaged, international cooperation, prevented the disease from being identified before the AIDS epidemic in the United States was well underway. For all of these reasons, the emergence and proliferation of disease on the African Continent should concern Americans. Population shifts, urban overcrowding, eroding health and sanitation infrastructures, inadequate public education initiatives, and environmental mismanagement all contribute to disease proliferation in Africa, and in turn, that proliferation affects the United States Mr. President, in this post-cold-war era, many in the policy and academic community are reassessing American vulnerabilities and global priorities. For example, I have strongly believed that nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons proliferation presented a clear threat to our Nation and have supported efforts to combat those dangers. But traditional perceptions of national security do not encompass many of the new threats facing our nation. As I have argued, emerging infectious diseases in Africa are one such threat--presenting serious dangers to United States citizens abroad and at home. American engagement, both explicitly through international disease prevention and control initiatives, and indirectly through encouragement of stability, social service reforms, and environmental responsibility, helps fight these emerging diseases, keeping both Africans and Americans strong, healthy, and secure as we prepare to enter the 21st century. This is just one reason, Mr. President, why Africa does matter to us. I suggest it is a security threat, as well as a personal threat, and one that we should care about with interest and compassion, as we look to our own budgets, and as we look to our own strategists. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, 5 or 6 minutes.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Georgia. I certainly would agree with him, and I think we all share a concern about the scope of the drug problem in this country. One cannot help but be disturbed by the growing use of life-destructive drugs. As someone who cares deeply about the youth of this country, I certainly stand second to none in my concern about the destructive impact of drugs on children. I had worked long in community efforts in this area before I even came to the U.S. Senate. I know something about the different types of initiatives that have been undertaken. I also fully agree with the Senator from Georgia that this President has not offered the kind of moral leadership on this issue that we both need and expect. He has not spoken out forcefully against drugs. He has devoted little time to this issue, and until the appointment of General McCaffrey, he has not supported energetically those in his administration working on this problem. Yet, despite my serious concern about the drug problem in our country, as well as my dismay about the administration's weak response, I must reluctantly oppose the amendment. Mr. President, as has been pointed out, this amendment would increase U.S. spending for antinarcotics by some $53 million over the Senate funding level, a level which is already $45 million over last year's spending. If this amendment is approved, the Senate would nearly double what was spent last year on this program. In a bill where every account has been straight-lined or decreased, there is absolutely no reason to support a dramatic increase for this program. Let me say why. We all want to help slow the flow of drugs into the United States. I have always been a believer, however, that where there is a demand, there will be a supply. There is a world of money to be made in drugs, and until we can address that in each and every one of our communities, we are not going to be able to effectively stop the supply into this country. The international antinarcotics program has simply not been an effective use of scarce Federal dollars. To date, we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in this effort. Yet, worldwide production of illicit drugs has increased dramatically. Over the past decade, just 10 years, opium and marijuana production has roughly doubled, and coca production has tripled. For example, since 1990, the United States has spent over $500 million on antinarcotics programs in Colombia alone. Yet, drug production in Colombia remains high, and the administration could not even certify Colombia as cooperating on antinarcotics programs. Mr. President, the reality is that world production and supply of narcotics vastly exceeds world demand. Even under the best case scenario, global supply reductions are unlikely to have even a minimal effect on our domestic drug problem. I fully appreciate the sentiments of my colleague from Georgia, and I agree with him. We all understand the destructive power of drugs, and we all want to end the flow of narcotics into the United States. But throwing more and more money at failed solutions simply does not make sense. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Coverdell amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today I will cast my vote in favor of the Hatfield amendment to prevent U.S. arms exports to countries that are undemocratic or that violate human rights--unless, of course, our national security interests override those concerns. I am well aware of this legislation's shortcomings, and I do not cast this vote lightly. But today I dissent from those who would continue to expand America's arms exports. We cannot stand by indefinitely as the current international arms bazaar continues to grow. And we must in honesty acknowledge that America's arms export policy has substantially contributed to the problem. Fully half of all international weapons transfers in 1994 came from the United States. A year later, in 1995, we more than doubled the number of major conventional weapons that we sent abroad. Arms transfers can serve important American interests and, indeed, the majority of our shipments go to our NATO allies or to our major strategic allies in other regions of the world. These important transfers that serve our national interests would withstand closer scrutiny by Congress. But too often we have seen arms we transferred abroad used to repress democracy and human rights rather than to support freedom. As chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, I have seen teenagers in Liberia and Angola who have learned to shoot before learning to read. I have seen countries whose meager coffers have been drained to purchase weapons of war while their people suffer an unconscionable standard of living. Perhaps during the cold war, when we were locked in a global struggle with communism, considerations such as these were necessarily secondary. But no more. We cannot be responsible for the misconduct of other governments. But we can refuse to participate in arming repressive regimes or strengthening the hand of those who grossly violate human rights. We can encourage the forces of liberty abroad--in countries friend and foe alike--by making clear that the price for American arms includes progress on human rights and democratic government. The liberal transfer of arms abroad puts our national interest at risk. Our soldiers already have faced American weapons in combat. More often, they have faced weapons supplied freely by other major arms exporters. Yet, as long as we are the world's largest seller of arms, we have little leverage to press other exporters to curtail transfers we oppose. Mr. President, I am under no illusion that this legislation will become law. But for that very reason, I view this as a vote not just about the specific language and procedures in this amendment but about the overall direction of America's arms export policy. I believe that policy, on the whole, is headed in the wrong direction. For that reason, I am voting for a change. The Dorgan-Hatfield Code of Conduct Amendment

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Senator Roth, the budget reconciliation bill (S. 1795) includes a proposal that is in the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. As you know, last year during debate on the welfare bill, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Amendments Act of 1995 (S. 850), which was approved unanimously by the Labor Committee on May 26, 1995, was incorporated into H.R. 4. And H.R. 4 was then included in last year's budget reconciliation bill. During the conference on last year's budget reconciliation bill, conferees from the Labor Committee and the Finance Committee reached agreement on a unified system for all Federal child care assistance, including child care assistance for low-income working families as well as for welfare families and for families at risk of becoming dependent on welfare. This consolidation and unified system for child care is a major improvement over current law. I would also like to bring to your attention a proposal contained in the House reconciliation bill that falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Committee. The House bill incorporates the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1995 (S. 919), which was unanimously approved by the Labor Committee on July 18, 1995. Although this proposal was not included in S. 1795, it will be considered during the budget reconciliation conference. Because of the unique procedures that apply to budget reconciliation bills, the Labor Committee was not given the opportunity to mark up the child care proposal in S. 1795 and the child abuse authorizations in the House bill. I am concerned that members of the Finance Committee will be negotiating changes in these Labor Committee programs during the budget reconciliation conference without any input from the committee of jurisdiction. Senator ROTH. Let me assure the distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources that I recognize that the child care and development block grant is within the jurisdiction of the Labor Committee, with the Finance Committee retaining jurisdiction over the entitlement funds for child care that flow through this program. As you know, the Finance Committee's entitlement funds must be used to provide child care services to families receiving assistance under the new TANF block grant, families transitioning from welfare to work, and families at risk of becoming dependent upon welfare. I also recognize that the Labor Committee has jurisdiction over the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee. Mr. President, I request that a copy of a letter sent to Chairman Roth by myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Coats, and Senator Dodd and a copy of S. 850, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Amendments Act of 1995, as approved by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, be made a part of the Record. The text of S. 919, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments, as approved by the Senate appears in the Congressional Record of Friday, July 19, 1996. The material follows: U.S. Senate, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Washington, DC, June 24, 1996. Hon. William V. Roth, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Bill: It is our understanding that the Committee on Finance intends to mark-up reconciliation language based on S. 1795, the ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996.'' We presume that the Committee on Finance intends to include provisions in Title VIII on child care and provisions in Title VII on child abuse and neglect that were part of last year's conference agreement on welfare reform. Because this language will be reported by the Finance Committee to the Senate Committee on the Budget as part of budget reconciliation, it will have special status during floor consideration of the legislation. One of the conditions of that special status is that extraneous provisions are not in order. Section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended by the ``Byrd Rule,'' creates a point of order against extraneous provisions that are ``. . . not in the jurisdiction of the Committee with jurisdiction over said title or provision.'' We are making recommendations to the Committee on Finance in an effort to facilitate the reconciliation process. However, we strongly believe that it must be made clear that the budget procedures in no way alter existing jurisdiction over child care and child abuse/neglect. In order to make this clear, we expect to engage in a colloquy when the reconciliation bill comes to the floor, rather than using the Byrd rule to preserve the committee's jurisdiction. Titles VII and VIII of S. 1795 include extraneous provisions in the form of changes in authorizations under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Last year, during the development and consideration of the welfare provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1996 and the welfare reform bill, members of the Labor Committee were active participants. The child care and child abuse and neglect provisions in the Senate-passed welfare reform bill were, in fact, Labor Committee-passed bills and were included in the conference negotiations for both the Balanced Budget Act of 1996 and the welfare reform legislation. Both of these Labor Committee bills were passed with strong bipartisan support. To meet the requirements of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, the Labor Committee's child abuse and neglect provisions were dropped from the conference report for the Balanced Budget Act of 1996, but were included in the welfare reform legislation. Members of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources were conferees on the Balanced Budget Act of 1996, due to the inclusion of the child care provisions and House inclusion of the child abuse and neglect provisions. If this bill were going through the normal legislative process for changes in authorization bills, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources would be entitled to make modifications to the provisions under its jurisdiction. However, because the Finance Committee has included changes in Labor Committee programs in the Medicaid-welfare reconciliation bill, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be precluded from the opportunity to make changes in the bill. Under these circumstances, we recognize that the only way that revisions can be made to programs under the jurisdiction of the Labor Committee is to have these changes made during Finance Committee consideration of the Medicaid-welfare reconciliation bill. In anticipation of the mark-up of the legislation by the Finance Committee, we would like to recommend several modifications to the Labor Committee provisions in the bill. In ``Title VIII--Child Care:'' 1. Maintain the health and safety standards in current law; 2. Increase the set-aside for activities to improve the quality of child care from 3 percent to 4 percent; 3. Increase the age from under six (6) to under eleven (11) when a single custodial parent could not be sanctioned for failing to meet the work requirements if adequate, affordable child care is not available; and 4. Require the states to maintain 100 percent of 1995 child care funding to be eligible for additional child care funds. All of the recommended modifications to Title VIII were passed by the House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. In ``Title VII--Child Protection Block Grant Programs and Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Independent Living Programs'' of the Finance Committee bill, a number of authorizations that are in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources are rewritten to be consolidated into block grants. These changes have never been formally considered, or debated by the full Labor Committee. In addition, the Medicaid-welfare reconciliation bill even strikes several important provisions that were included in the last year's reconciliation conference report and reported out by the relevant House committees in this year's reconciliation bill. Specifically, those provisions concern the prompt expungement of child abuse records on unsubstantiated or false cases; the appointment of guardian ad litems; and the inclusion of material in support of the state's certification concerning the reporting of medical neglect of disabled infants. We look forward to working with the members of the Finance Committee on this legislation and being formally included in the conference negotiations on provisions under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Sincerely, Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Dan Coats, Chairman, Subcommittee on Children and Families. Edward M. Kennedy, Ranking Member, Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Christopher Dodd, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Children and Families.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 704, legislation to establish a national gambling impact study commission. In the past few years, we have witnessed the rapid proliferation of the gaming industry across the Nation--initially under Indian tribal ownership and more recently by State governments. In my home State of Kansas, the casino and slot machine issue has been hotly debated. Race tracks and river boat gambling have been established in the Kansas City area, and both the Kickapoo and Potawatomie Nations have plans to expand certain gaming facilities on tribal lands. I realize that gaming can provide tremendous revenues for State and local economies, particularly for Indian tribes wishing to improve reservation conditions and provide employment opportunities. In this regard, gaming has produced positive results. However, growing evidence indicates gambling has some harmful side effects. A particular concern focuses on reports that gaming causes the breakup of families, suicides, increased teenage gambling, corruption, and the closing of main street stores. Mr. President, I think an impact study would help Americans better understand the unintended social and economic effects the gaming industry is having on our families and communities. I also believe we have a responsibility to bring together all the relevant data so that Governors, State legislators, and citizens can make more informed decisions about gambling in their home States. Concerns have been raised in the Senate regarding the commission's original subpoena authority. As my colleagues have already stated, however, those concerns were addressed by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs when it adopted the Stevens substitute amendment on May 14. In my view, the final measure represents a balanced approach-- one that addresses individual privacy rights and business trade concerns but also provides the commission the authority and resources necessary to thoroughly examine this issue. This legislation has drawn broad, bipartisan support in Congress. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 704.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, early this week, the people of the Republic of Niger were denied their right to choose their own leadership and control their destiny. I want to express my deep disappointment in the Nigerian elections and in the military regime that chose to retain power through fraud and intimidation rather than honor its word to hold free and fair elections. In January, immediately after Gen. Ibrahim Barre Mainassara deposed Niger's democratically elected president in a military coup, he pledged to return the country to democracy as soon as possible. At that time, the United States rejected the use of military solutions for political problems by suspending bilateral development and military assistance, as well as support for Niger in multilateral financial institutions. We urged Barre to keep his word and encouraged the military government to reestablish democracy quickly and transparently. Balloting started on Sunday, despite the fact that the Independent Electoral Commission had twice requested a postponement in order to ensure that accurate voter lists and voter cares were in place. General Barre rejected these requests and, instead, extended the voting through Monday. On this second day of balloting, the general deployed security forces to the homes of his opponents, shut down private radio stations--including the Voice of America affiliate--and dissolved the Independent Electoral Commission. Barre appointed a new commission which declared him the winner only hours later. Quickly after that declaration all demonstrations and public assemblies were banned. Political leaders are under house arrest, and political activists are being detained. Mr. President, I join with the administration and other members of the international community in condemning these recent events. The age of accepting military coups and authoritarian regimes in Africa is over. France, with its unique influence in Niger, can have an especially powerful voice in articulating this message. For this reason, it is particularly disturbing that the bilateral French delegation on the ground claimed that, by Nigerian standards, this weekend's election was a sound one. In this era of change and growth throughout much of the African Continent, Niger now stands out as a country moving against the tide of openness and progress. Development and economic growth cannot be achieved in a climate of instability, and human potential cannot be realized in an atmosphere of fear. If the people of Niger are to find their much-deserved place among the emerging markets and developing nations of Africa, Niger must return to democracy.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, my amendment is identical with the House-passed language. I want to make a couple of points about why I believe the TEAM Act is important. One, it applies only to nonunion settings.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. This applies only to nonunion settings. It has been misrepresented by some as applying to union companies as well. Second, the purpose for this is in order to say to employers that they should be free to discuss with employees those issues of concern to both. It is to address an environment in the workplace that will help us meet the new reality of our competition and our productivity today that is important for good communication. It is a bill that only represents common sense. It is not in any way designed to be a destroyer of the unions, and I urge support for my amendment and the TEAM legislation.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, regarding the Dorgan amendment, I would just say that I think we are better off the way things are than to try to develop a rigidity that I think would occur in the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota. It requires a committee structure that is very rigid and lacks the flexibility that we were trying to address. I do not believe it in any way answers the concerns and the questions that have been raised by the actions of the NLRB regarding a lack of understanding on how employees get together under the National Labor Relations Act. That was the purpose of the legislation before in the TEAM Act, and I will address my amendment later.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the senior Senator from Colorado, Senator Brown.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes from the leaders' time.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes of the leader's time to the Senator from Texas.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I commend Senator Hutchison and Senator Mikulski for the leadership they have provided on the homemaker IRA's. I am pleased to have been a cosponsor, along with a number of others. I think it is a very beneficial aspect of the Finance Committee legislation that is before us. Senator Hutchison and Senator Mikulski have fought some valiant battles to bring this to the public's attention, particularly to the attention of the Congress. I now will yield the remaining time on the bill to the senior Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, there are a few minutes more of leader's time if the Senator from Missouri feels he needs a few extra minutes.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I can appreciate that. But just that one case which came up, as I gave an illustration of--the Dillon stores in Kansas--the grocery stores, and a ruling then that had the chilling effect and has caused a number of nonunion settings of employees and employers to be very uncertain. And actually that is what I think the Senator from North Dakota was saying. There was some uncertainty, and in trying to address with specificity I think it becomes too specific. If I just may mention, at least as I understand it, that there are three categories that are addressed in the amendment of Senator Dorgan. I think again it goes back to a rigidity and a lack of flexibility that I think is important. I do not think you can have three categories and three sizes that would fit all. I would like to see if I am correct in this. One would be an employee in a brainstorming discussion group that can only meet for a short duration of time to discuss matters of mutual interest. If workers and supervisors want to discuss important workplace issues on a regular basis, that would not be permitted under this category. When important workplace issues are raised, managers would have to tell workers that further discussions would be illegal. If that is, indeed, the intent of the language in the amendment, I think again specificity that does not allow for a flexibility that we were trying to encourage with employer-employee discussions. Also, there would be employee work teams that were established for a duration that could discuss quality and productivity issues. But discussions on workplace issues like health and safety, or vacations, or other issues, child care and so forth, could occur only sporadically. When work teams have exhausted their quota of discussion time on important issues like safety, then managers would have to terminate further discussion, or face violating Federal law. I do not want to add words that are not theirs. But it seems to me that these are providing conditions that even further confuse what could or could not be done. Then the third is what I think are called employee committees which may discuss again workplace issues like safety and no smoking policies as often is desired. However, the employees chosen by secret ballot election under NLRB procedures have a new entitlement--the assistance of outside experts to address issues before the committee. I understand that was taken out. But I do not know what the third employee committee does. But it is a committee structure that I think in the specificity lends itself to even further concern about whether there would be a clear understanding of what could or could not be done. So again, I think it is very important for us to explore this and with a clear understanding of whether we have actually complicated the procedure or have enhanced clarification. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield the Senator from Georgia 10 minutes.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the Senator from Georgia for his comments. I know that he cares a great deal about trying to make sure we can have a creative and constructive environment in the workplace, certainly in the State of Georgia. He also recognizes how that environment has helped businesses grow in the State of Georgia. I would like to add a comment about something else that was stated earlier, that there was really no need for us to have this legislation; that, as a matter of fact, there were many cases that had been favorably handled and that there was not a worry in the workplace. I would just like to give an example of why there is concern. A National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge has handed down a decision in the long-awaited Polaroid case. The Polaroid Co. has been heralded as one of America's most progressive companies, having championed workplace collaboration since the 1930's. Following the NLRB's decision in the 1992 Electromation case, which sparked this effort to try to clarify the National Labor Relations Act, Polaroid concluded that its 60-year-old teams violated the Board's rule. The company tried to restructure its committee organization to comply, but the NLRB's June 14 decision shows the futility of such efforts. Even though the new committee structure was much weaker than the old, the administrative law judge ordered it disbanded. Polaroid further illustrates for employers the clear rule on meaningful workplace cooperation: If it happens in a nonunion setting, it is regarded as illegal. The Polaroid case also addresses another argument propounded repeatedly by the opponents of cooperation in nonunion settings: The TEAM Act is not necessary because antiteamwork NLRB decisions only happen in small companies that are not household names. Certainly Polaroid is a household name. It is one we have all heard of, and I think the Polaroid case clearly illustrates why the current law has caused uncertainty throughout the Nation's companies as they try to comply with the letter of the law. To quote from a press release of Bill Gould, Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, on June 6, in which he said in a speech in Omaha: In a non-union situation, the sensible response to all of this is to allow employee groups, with or without a management representative component, to discuss anything that they would like to, whether it be wages, break periods or the problems confronted in selling the product. The more that workers know about the enterprise and the better that they are able to participate effectively in decision making, the more likely it is that both democratic values and competitiveness are enhanced. And, if the law is simplified, lay people--ordinary workers and small business persons--will be able to adapt to their own circumstances and avoid reliance upon wasteful litigation and the high priced counsel that go with it. He went on to say: Employers ought to be able to promote the creation of and to subsidize employee groups. In the real world that is what is happening anyway. With workers unrepresented by unions in 85 percent of the workforce, how else can such systems flourish? To be fair, as I said before, Chairman Gould does not support the TEAM Act that is before us. But clearly his statement in Omaha in June indicates that he does believe the very problem we are trying to address in the TEAM Act should be addressed. I believe, however, that the problem is addressed in the TEAM Act in such a way that it could be supported by a broad range of those on both sides of the aisle. Those who speak in opposition clearly are those who fear it will do something that, indeed, it could not do. By the language in this legislation, their fears could not be realized--it in no way infringes on the collective bargaining process or the letter of the law in the National Labor Relations Act. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time to be equally divided.