Nancy Kassebaum

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Senator from Virginia who knows well the importance of this legislation to the effectiveness and the well-being of employees. As a member of the small business community, I think he has addressed very effectively just how much it would be an asset to employees, as well as employers, to have some certainty about their ability to communicate and work together in the workplace.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 9, 1996, in open/closed session, to receive a report on the bombing of United States military facilities in Saudi Arabia on June 25, 1996.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, July 9, 1996, in open session, to consider the nomination of Mr. Andrew S. Effron to be a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Services.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 9, 1996, at 8 a.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters and 11:30 a.m. to hold an open hearing on intelligence matters.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I want to suggest the time I took should come out of the time allotted to our side in opposition, of course.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I assume that will be the case.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may just respond to the minimum wage debate without addressing any of the particular amendments. I certainly hope the argument I make will not be viewed as just another tired, old argument, because I believe it is not a question of whether we raise the minimum wage--I think most in this Chamber would believe the minimum wage should be increased--but how it is done. I have felt for some time that we need to be very sensitive to the changes that are taking place in the labor markets, including the need for higher skills. These are things that we hopefully have addressed with the job training initiatives that we have considered in the Senate, and have now been in conference for some months. Those initiatives are the things that will help workers get good-paying jobs. We have also talked about welfare reform, and the senior Senator from New York knows this issue better than anyone. We need--I believe, if we are going to do welfare reform in a meaningful way--to have job opportunities where workers can enter at entry level positions and be able to have the training and the skills to rise in the labor market. I would not want to make the argument that a family can live on $4.25 per hour, which is the current minimum wage, or at $5.15 per hour, which it would be after the next 2 years. But, that is not really the point. The point is, we need to see that young people and those reentering the labor market are able to have the opportunity to develop the discipline and the skills that they need in a changing workplace with the demands of a high technology environment. So we need to think carefully as we debate about this increase, which in some ways may not seem large. Many States, including, I believe, New York State, have a State minimum wage higher than the $5.15 we are talking about as the Federal minimum wage. New York may need a higher wage to attract workers into the workplace than, say, Kansas. We have very different needs in our urban areas versus our rural areas. That is why I would argue we really should not increase the Federal minimum wage but allow for this diversity among the States to take place. The Federal minimum wage should, perhaps, be a target, allowing States to set the wage level that they believe is important to attract a work force that will benefit their State and their businesses as well as those entering the work force. I want to be clear. I have not supported this increase in the minimum wage. I oppose it because I think it is the wrong time for us to potentially shut off job opportunities for those we are suggesting move off welfare rolls. If we pass Federal legislation--and many States have already passed significant welfare reform--individuals will need entry level jobs in which they can begin to progress back up the ladder in the work force. I think increasing the minimum wage will raise the lowest rung on the economic ladder and thus potentially leave behind those just trying to gain a foothold either for their first job or going back in and retraining for another type of job. Although well-intended, this increase--I believe--will cause a loss of entry level jobs and will limit job opportunities for low-skilled workers. This, I would suggest, will not help raise living standards for the poor, and that is really what we wish to see happen. That is why I feel so strongly about the need to have some really very innovative, thought-through, carefully designed job training initiatives. We also have to give a greater emphasis in our educational system, which is really the foundation, to being able to enter a work force with a good-paying job that can support a family as we move into a new age of technology that we are facing--a revolution really of technology today and into the next century. Let me just give you an example. Last December, the Senate labor committee held a hearing on the minimum wage. We heard from a small restaurant chain owner named Kenneth James who took his first job in high school in the restaurant business and now runs a restaurant chain that employees 160 people. He testified that he will have fewer workers in his restaurants if we increase the minimum wage. Due to competition, he and other restaurant employers cannot raise prices and pass the costs along to consumers. The big loser, as I said earlier, will be those low-skilled workers who are never hired for their first job. They are the ones I think we need to be concerned about. Mr. James estimated that each of his restaurants would have three fewer workers if we raise the minimum wage as proposed. That argument can be refuted. How do we really know? But I think we have already seen many changes that have occurred. For example, when one pumps her own gas or when one takes care of his own tray at fast food restaurants. All of these things have entered into ways we see businesses changing. I do not know what the answer is, but I am concerned we are doing this now at a time when we are putting more and more people, because of welfare reform initiatives, out into the marketplace without the necessary skills. Skills that will allow them to have the good-paying jobs that should be had without the training for work that they have not had. They will need entry-level wages. They will need those, whether they are first-time job-seekers or whether they have not been working for a number of years and need to get back into the work force. If we want to develop the highly skilled work force and employ more young men and women and move people off the welfare rolls, we need to open more doors so individuals can get the basic skills that will enable them to climb the job ladder. Raising the minimum wage will only, I think, shut the door on those trying to get started. The Congressional Budget Office reviewed this proposed increase and reached a similar conclusion. CBO estimates that raising the minimum wage will result in the loss of potentially 100,000 to 500,000 jobs. According to CBO: Another consequence might be that employers respond to the mandate by reducing employment opportunities for the least skilled job seekers and the ones who could most benefit from the work experience. To the extent that low-skilled workers are shut out of employment opportunities, their total incomes might fall, even though their hourly wage rates while working increased. CBO concludes that this minimum wage increase will be an unfunded mandate on State and local governments, as well as the private sector. It estimates the cost to the private sector will be more than $12 billion over the next 5 years. Someone has to pay this cost, and I fear that the most vulnerable will pay the price in lost jobs. That, I suggest, is something we should consider carefully as we debate the question, not of whether the minimum wage should be increased, but how. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, it has been exactly 2 full months since the Senate unanimously passed the Health Insurance Reform Act 100 to nothing. However, because Republicans and Democrats have been unable to reach agreement on one outstanding issue--the size and scope of the Medical Savings Account Demonstration Program--we have not been able to make further progress in reaching a compromise between the House and Senate language on this bill. Many, I think, assume that this legislation which passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate has already become law, and that is just not the case. I would suggest that every day we wait the stakes grow higher. As the number of legislative days dwindle: More American families lose their health insurance coverage; More American families are unable to obtain insurance because of preexisting illnesses or outright discrimination; Millions of Americans hold onto jobs that they would otherwise leave for fear of losing their health coverage; Patients suffering from AIDS, and our seniors and disabled citizens, do not have adequate resources to pay for care; And self-employed men and women, and small businesses, find the cost of health insurance increasingly out of reach. The bipartisan health reform legislation that passed both the Senate and the House in April would help address these critical issues. The General Accounting Office [GAO] estimates that the reforms at the heart of the bill will help at least 25 million Americans each year. There is no disagreement between Republicans and Democrats about how to help these 25 million Americans. Yet each day that we quibble over whether to allow a tiny fraction of the insurance market to test the concept of medical savings accounts, the chance to enact reforms that will help these 25 million Americans grows dim. As my colleagues know, the House passed a very different bill from the Senate. But after weeks of discussions and sometimes tense negotiations between Republican leaders, we have reached agreement on every outstanding issue--except for MSA's. The House has agreed to drop altogether controversial provisions on multiple employer welfare arrangements and medical malpractice. While many--including myself-- strongly believe we need to help small employers gain purchasing clout and control the health care costs through malpractice reform, all of us recognized that compromise was necessary to reach a bipartisan consensus on the legislation. Mr. President, I want to assure my colleagues and the American people that the core of the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill is firmly in place in the House-Senate compromise. Those provisions will greatly enhance the health security of American workers. In addition, the compromise legislation increases the deduction for self-employed individuals from 30 to 80 percent, provides tax deductions to help make long-term care more affordable for our seniors, and helps reduce health costs by fighting fraud and abuse and reducing the paperwork burden imposed on patients, doctors, and hospitals. In an attempt to reach agreement on the remaining outstanding issue, Republicans have offered three separate compromises on medical savings accounts. Unfortunatley, these concessions seem to have done little to narrow the gap between Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate, and the White House. Last night, under the leadership of the distinguished majority leader, Republicans proposed an extremely generous, constructive compromise that will allow us to test the concept of MSA's and assess their impact in the small employer market. As my colleagues know, I have grave concerns about the potential impact of MSAs. But I believe this proposal is fair and limited, and contains protections sufficient to guard against adverse risk selection. It was offered in good faith and goes a long way toward meeting concerns raised by the President. In fact, it goes well beyond the agreement I reached earlier with many Republicans in the House and Senate conference. As part of this agreement: Republicans have agreed to reduce the scope of the 4-year demonstration program to firms with 50 employees or less, and to require an affirmative vote to expand MSA's to large employers and individuals. That is a significant concession. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that MSA's will be available during this 4-year demonstration to less than 1 percent of the total work force and slightly more than 1 percent of the work force with insurance. Equally important, reducing the size of the demonstration to firms with 50 workers or less will help guard against risk selection because the underlying bill extends guaranteed issue and renewal requirements to firms with 50 or fewer workers. Moreover, this is the portion of the insurance market where the States have worked aggressively to protect consumers and guard against risk selection. The proposal contains a fire process for assessing the impact of MSA's by an independent, nonpartisan organization. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury is required to annually monitor the MSA's impact on the market and report to Congress as to whether the legislation is necessary to reduce costs due to excessive enrollment. Finally, Republicans have agreed to reduce further individuals' out- of-pocket exposure by lowering the maximum MSA deductible and requiring MSA plans to cover at least 70 percent of covered services once an individual reaches the deductible. We also have agreed to further reduce the tax advantages of MSA's by limiting annual contributions. Moreover, high-deductible plans must meet disclosure requirements, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners is directed to promulgate further consumer protection standards. Mr. President, despite significant concessions, I believe, on the part of Republicans, however, the White House and congressional Democrats continue to raise new demands and to insist that high- deductible MSA policies meet nondiscrimination and consumer protection standards well beyond current law requirements for other health insurance plans and even well beyond the reforms contained in the underlying legislation. The Health Insurance Reform Act will pass, Mr. President, only if we keep our eye on the ball. First, we need to recognize that success always requires compromise. The House has conceded on malpractice reforms, has conceded on MEWA's and now receded significantly on the MSA's. Second, we need to bear in mind that the legislation will help 25 million Americans each year, and that the positive impact of the bill's core reforms will far outweigh any potential harm from the limited medical savings account proposal that has been offered by Republicans last night. I believe we have worked too long and too hard in a bipartisan fashion to let this historic opportunity to pass meaningful health reform pass us by. I hope we can come together in the next few days. I think it is absolutely essential that we not let time slip away. And I hope that the White House and the Democratic leadership will genuinely help us reach that goal. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am particularly proud to have heard the junior Senator from Kansas. I have known Senator Frahm as a friend in Kansas. I have known her as a majority leader of the Kansas Senate, and I think she spoke in her speech to the qualities that have made her an exemplary leader and legislator in Kansas. I have every confidence she is going to translate the very skills she spoke to in her maiden speech to the work she carries out in the future on the floor of the Senate, not only for the best interests of Kansas, as she said, but the best interests of the Nation. It is with real pride today that I, the senior Senator from Kansas, heard the maiden speech of the junior Senator from Kansas. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Slade Gorton, who is my colleague on the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, as a cosponsor of his bill, the Truth in Employment Act of 1996. This legislation addresses an issue known as salting. Over the last few years, professional union organizers, known as salts, have attempted to gain access to private property for organizing purposes. Sometimes, supervisors refuse to provide access to the property. Other times, if organizers gain access to the property, they have destroyed equipment and been disruptive. Whether or not the organizers gain access to the property, they five numerous charges with the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB], knowing that the cost of defending such groundless charges ultimately must be borne by the employer. This process, known as salting, is an abuse of our system and is nothing less than outright harassment. Our Federal labor law protects the right of workers to organize a union. It does not and it should not protect unions as they attempt to use our Federal agencies to harass companies. I recognize at this late date in our legislative session that this bill has little chance of becoming law in 1996. I also understand that concerns had been raised over how to address the salting problem through legislation. Because this is an important issue, though, we need to move forward by introducing a bill. I hope that through the process of hearings in our committee, we will find an acceptable legislative solution that all parties can accept.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Slade Gorton, who is my colleague on the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, as a cosponsor of his bill, the Truth in Employment Act of 1996. This legislation addresses an issue known as salting. Over the last few years, professional union organizers, known as salts, have attempted to gain access to private property for organizing purposes. Sometimes, supervisors refuse to provide access to the property. Other times, if organizers gain access to the property, they have destroyed equipment and been disruptive. Whether or not the organizers gain access to the property, they five numerous charges with the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB], knowing that the cost of defending such groundless charges ultimately must be borne by the employer. This process, known as salting, is an abuse of our system and is nothing less than outright harassment. Our Federal labor law protects the right of workers to organize a union. It does not and it should not protect unions as they attempt to use our Federal agencies to harass companies. I recognize at this late date in our legislative session that this bill has little chance of becoming law in 1996. I also understand that concerns had been raised over how to address the salting problem through legislation. Because this is an important issue, though, we need to move forward by introducing a bill. I hope that through the process of hearings in our committee, we will find an acceptable legislative solution that all parties can accept.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, when I assumed the chairmanship of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee last year, one of my top priorities was to bring to fruition a comprehensive reform of our many job training programs. My colleague in that effort on the other side of the aisle is the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, who has been a stalwart supporter of this effort. We both felt strongly there was much that could be done that would significantly improve and enhance Federal job training programs. Over the past several years, the General Accounting Office, the inspector general, the Department of Labor, and others, have churned out report after report documenting both the proliferation of Federal job training efforts and the inability of these programs to show results. The roughly $5 billion which the Federal Government invests in these programs is small potatoes in our annual trillion-dollar-plus budget. The work of these programs are not front-page news, and the issues they raise are probably regarded as boring and tedious. Mr. President, nevertheless, the Workforce Development Act, which was approved by a vote of 95 to 2, offered an ideal opportunity to find ways to make Government work better. The legislation was designed to achieve four basic objectives: One, to consolidate overlapping and narrowly focused Federal categorical programs to allow for the development of statewide systems to address the needs of all individuals. Two, to provide the States with sufficient flexibility to focus trading resources on their areas of greatest need, while preserving the core activities supported by the Federal Government in the past. Three, to develop true partnerships among the educators who provide the academic foundation, the trainers who provide the technical expertise, and the business people who create the jobs for which individuals are being trained. Four, to shift the focus of accountability from one which looks only at the front end--``Are Federal regulations being followed to the letter?''--to one which looks at the results--``Are training program participants getting jobs?'' Throughout the process in committee, on the floor, and in conference, various accommodations were made in the inevitable process of resolving competing concerns. Some programs which I had believed were appropriate for consolidation, for example, were dropped out of the bill. Many of the changes made to the bill I originally introduced were not things which I would have preferred. Nevertheless, these revisions were made at the margin. As we near the conclusion of the conference, which has been ongoing since October, the core objectives of the bill remain intact and remain worthy of the support they received in overwhelming votes in both the House and Senate. Specifically, the bill consolidates 80 separate programs into a work force and career development block grant to the States. Consolidating these programs will permit the States to develop cohesive systems, with employment and training activities being delivered on a one-stop basis. Second, the bill assures a foundation of support for the four basic activity that have traditionally received Federal support: employment and training; vocational education; adult education; and services for at-risk youth. At the same time, the bill permits each State to supplement the activities which it needs most, by reserving 25 percent of the funds in a flex account to be distributed among the four core activities in the way chosen by the State. Third, it creates real incentives for cooperation and coordination among educators, trainers, and the business community by providing a collaborative process both for the development of a single State plan and for decisionmaking regarding the allocation of flex funds. Finally, the bill gets rid of thousands of pages of statutory and regulatory prescriptions and allows State and local officials to concentrate on results. States must establish benchmarks--a process which entails setting specific goals their programs are supposed to achieve. Incentives and sanctions will be based on performance relative to the benchmarks. Unfortunately, the opportunity to achieve these goals is on the verge of slipping from our grasp. If this bill dies, it will not do so because it is bad policy. Rather, it will have fallen victim to two disparate but powerful political agendas. On the one hand, many Democrats see the demise of this bill as an opportunity not only to preserve the status quo and the individual interests it protects, but also to use it as fodder in the sound bites leading to the November elections. Despite recent allegations to the contrary, this legislation has not been an all-Republican effort. Both the House and Senate have made every effort to obtain bipartisan support, and large bipartisan majorities in both bodies approved the legislation. No one could be a stronger defender of the need of this type of innovative approach to Government than Senator Kerrey of Nebraska. I would like to suggest, however, that the conference proposal reflects a number of concessions that were made in an attempt to address concerns raised by the administration--and I believe that we have done so, not all of them exactly as the administration would have wished but now the administration has withdrawn support--including the establishment of mandatory career grant programs for dislocated workers in every State; a 50-percent reduction in the size of the flex account; the separation of Wagner-Peyser funds from the block grant; the abandonment of the Federal partnership in favor of enhancing the authorities of the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education; and the establishment of mandatory local boards. We are now in the position of being told that not only are these concessions which were made insufficient, but also that provisions which were never a part of either bill, such as the $1.3 billion earmark for dislocated workers, are the price of the administration's support. At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who have seized the bill as a platform to debate issues which have nothing to do with the purpose or provisions of this legislation. For example, one of the major specific criticisms leveled by family groups is that the legislation does not abolish the Department of Education. Our efforts to assure that individuals get the information and training they need to make their own choices and to pursue their own dreams have been turned on their head and have been mischaracterized as a Federal plot to dictate career and education choices. Each of these groups has set a list of their complaints about the bill. I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of these complaints, along with a brief summary of the conference proposal, appear in the Record following my remarks.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, to conclude, the alliance of those who want continued preeminence of Federal bureaucracies with those who will settle for nothing less than their total dismantlement threaten to turn a solid piece of legislation into nothing more than a fundraising tool. Good Government is pretty boring stuff compared to the adrenalin charge that can be produced by allegations that Republicans are insensitive to the needs of American workers, or that the Federal Government is engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the rights and freedoms of individuals. Both sides would settle for the status quo. Mr. President, I think it is very sad to see us at a point when we should be able to survive these potent political forces and being willing to take some small steps forward to address the very thing that most Americans would like to see, and that is, the control of the Federal Government dictating every aspect of initiatives that could bear real fruition at the State and local level. I would like to yield a minute or whatever time I have left, if I may, to Senator Kerrey of Nebraska to make a brief comment. Exhibit 1 Analysis of Concerns Expressed by President Clinton in Letter to Conferees Authorization Level. The President believes the authorization level for the bill should be set at $5.7 billion, which represents his fiscal year 1997 budget request for the programs included in the block grant. The conference proposal is to authorize ``such sums,'' which implies no limit on future appropriations and which is a practice used many times in the past in launching new initiatives. Disclocated Workers. Administration officials have requested that a minimum of $1.3 billion be earmarked for dislocated workers. The conference proposal does not include such an earmark, as such a proposal was never part of either the House or the Senate bill. The purpose of this legislation is to get away from the ``categorization'' of individuals to allow the development of a system which works for all in need of its services. States with large dislocated worker populations can allocate flex account funds to serve them, and dislocated workers are specifically identified as a group for which benchmarks must be developed. Vouchers. The President believes that all services (with a few limited exceptions) to dislocated workers should be delivered through vouchers or ``skill grants.'' The conference agreement requires every state to establish a pilot program to serve dislocated workers with ``career grants.'' The pilot must be of sufficient size, scope, and quality to demonstrate the effectiveness of career grants. States are specifically authorized to deliver all training services through career grants, should they choose to do so. The bill approved by the Senate did not require that vouchers be used under any circumstances--due to concerns that mandating vouchers would impose substantial administrative burdens on states and reduce state flexibility in determining the most effective means of service delivery. In addition, past experience with federal student loan programs has underscored both the importance and the difficulty of putting into place appropriate ``gate-keeping'' procedures to assure that participants are not ripped off by training providers. Given the seriousness of these concerns, I believe we have met the President more than half way. If vouchers work as well as he believes, they will undoubtedly be expanded. If they present the problems I anticipate, the pilot projects can offer guidance regarding whether or not they can be corrected. School-to-Work. The Administration wants the School-to-Work Opportunities Act to be authorized and funded as a separate program outside the block grant. The conference agreement would repeal this Act on July 1, 1998, the same date that approximately 80 other federal programs will be repealed. After that time, states would be able to use block grant funds to continue their school-to- work programs. Any state wishing to participate in the federal school-to- work program will have the opportunity to sign up prior to this repeal date. By all accounts, the program is popular with governors and other officials--who would presumably exercise their discretion to continue it with block grant funds. It makes no sense, however, to maintain a separate school-to-work program operating on a parallel track with the block grant. Accountability. The Administration indicates that the bill lacks ``accountability.'' Accountability for results--which is virtually non-existent in current programs--is a major focus of this reform legislation. It appears that the Administration's view of ``accountability'' is maintaining maximum federal control over job training programs. The conference agreement addresses strong concerns voiced earlier by the Administration about provisions of the Senate bill which combined offices within the Department of Labor and the Department of Education into a Federal Partnership to administer the block grant. I had felt it was important to have at the federal level the same coordination and cooperation we were seeking at the state level, but I abandoned that approach in the face of the Administration's objections. These new Administration concerns seem to undercut the objective of the legislation to enhance state responsibility and flexibility. It makes little sense to me to develop a bill which repeals current restrictions, only to establish a situation where federal Cabinet Secretaries are in the position of re-creating them through regulation Local Elected Officials. The Administration would like the local workforce development boards to be structured more like the existing Private Industry Councils [PICS]--particularly with respect to the role of local elected officials. The conference proposal gives substantial responsibility to local elected officials, but it admittedly and intentionally does not re-create PICs. Local elected officials are part of the collaborative process at the state level, making a variety of key decisions regarding the statewide system. In addition, at the local level, they appoint members of the local board, assist in developing the local plan, and provide continuous input to the board in carrying out its functions. Again, earlier Administration concerns were addressed when Senate conferees agreed to require the establishment of local boards--something which was not required in our original bill. Control of Education. The Administration believes that education programs should remain under the jurisdiction of the state and local education entities which currently oversee them. This has always been the objective of the Senate bill and is included in the conference proposal.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I want to strongly support this initiative and to commend Senators Nunn and Lugar, as well as Senator Domenici, for their continued strong leadership in this area vital to our national security. The single greatest threat to American soil today is that nuclear, chemical or biological weapons will be used against us by terrorist organizations or other rogue entities. Perhaps the supreme irony of the cold war's end is that while the risk that America will be devastated from coast to coast has abated, the prospects that a weapon of mass destruction will in fact detonate on our soil have grown substantially. The threats today are much more complex, and our response must be more complex as well. In plain terms, it is no longer enough that America's defenses be strong--they must also be smart, agile, flexible, and intuitive. The Senate, for example, has yet to consent to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention that President Bush negotiated. I think we should do so without delay. It is another of the many tools we need to meet the diverse new threats to our security. For several years, we have been engaged in the Nunn-Lugar program to help secure and destroy weapons of mass destruction at their source in parts of the former Soviet Union. This program has been successful, and I believe it should be expanded while that is still possible. Today we are considering the so-called Nunn-Lugar II program. While the existing program seeks to contain dangerous weapons material at its source, this new proposal would put in place mechanisms to deal with material that leaks. This amendment would let us help strengthen the export control regimes of countries that are the source of much of the weapons material. It is in our interest to help countries like Russia to keep weapons material inside their borders and out of international commerce. The amendment also would strengthen our own border controls to help keep illicit weapons material out of the United States. Finally, it would put in place a coordinated effort to ensure that the public safety personnel in communities across America know how to respond in the terrible event of a nuclear, chemical or biological incident. I hope this contingency planning is never needed, but I support this amendment in case it is.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, the Senate today will adopt legislation condemning Iran's persecution of the Baha'i community. We have taken similar action in the past, and I regret that our continued vigilance on this matter is required. We choose today to adopt this legislation in remembrance of a great tragedy for the Baha'i community and for all who value human rights and religious freedom. Thirteen years ago this month, Iranian religious officials executed, by hanging, 10 Baha'i women--including 3 teenage girls--in the city of Shiraz. This killing of innocent women and children came amid a series of Baha'i executions during the first half of 1983. At the time, President Reagan had expressed America's alarm at the religious persecution of the Baha'is in Iran and had called upon the Iranian leadership to spare the lives of those Baha'is condemned to death in Shiraz. The Iranian response to this plea was to carry out without hesitation the schedule of June executions. We know that those men, women, and children were executed not for any crimes but for their religious beliefs. We also know the persecution continues to this day in many forms, both great and small. Thirty-nine other Senators have joined with me in sponsoring this legislation, and the Senate today will unanimously adopt an identical resolution already passed by the House of Representatives. By today's action, the U.S. Senate once again will make clear to all who will listen: ``We have not forgotten.''

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which supports the important work of the National Institutes of Health. This bill, the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1996, will reauthorize the ongoing work of this outstanding Federal research institution. We all can take great pride in the exceptional contributions that the NIH has made to the improvement of the health of our citizens. NIH grants constitute the bulk of support for biomedical research throughout this country--almost $10 billion every year, distributed in nearly 25,000 separate grants. This unique investment of talent and dollars has one simple, overriding goal--the advancement of the health of Americans. This agency is, indeed, an extraordinary success story. To cite just one illustration: An NIH grant made possible the discovery of the BRCA- 1 gene, a genetic marker for an important form of breast cancer. Such a discovery offers great promise for new strategies for diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer and other serious illnesses. As long term commitment to further support of research into the mysteries of the human genetic code, this bill authorizes the creation of the National Human Genome Research Institute. The elevation of the National Center for Genome Research to institute status, while budget neutral, will ensure a continued focus of NIH resources for this important work. Mr. President, in addition to reauthorizing the lifesaving work of the two largest institutes, the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the bill authorizes a number of other important institutes and initiatives. Among them is research into new and resistant infections such as tuberculosis; and an Office of Rare Diseases to support research on over 2,000 uncommon diseases that, together, afflict thousands of Americans. Another critical area that this bill addresses is the education and training of the next generation of clinical researchers, the biomedical scientists who perform research that directly involves patients. This bill provides for greater support for expert training of young biomedical scientists who have elected the difficult, and increasingly competitive, careers in scientific inquiry. In addition, it provides important resources for the 75 general clinical research centers that exist in academic medical centers throughout the country. The role of NIH in clinical research is critical, since academic health centers in the 21st century will be posed with an unprecedented challenge: how to maintain their research mission in the face of a fundamentally changed health care system. These changes are the consequence of dramatic market shifts that are taking place in health care in this country. They have a potentially deleterious effect on the irreplaceable work of this country's academic health centers. Cost competition has made it particularly difficult for the continuation of many of these established institutions that frequently care for the sickest, as well as the poorest, citizens of our communities. This bill also makes substantial efforts to reduce administrative excess and duplicative infrastructure at NIH. It reduces redundant committees and reports. Every dollar saved from unnecessary administrative burdens is another dollar freed up for support of biomedical research. By its very nature, ever-expanding scientific knowledge places pressure on the limited resources for biomedical research support. Accordingly, this bill provides for a Biomedical Research Trust Fund within the Treasury. This trust fund is a first small step toward affording additional funds for the indispensable research mission in this era of shrinking Federal resources. In conclusion, Mr. President, reauthorization of the important work of the National Institutes of Health represents for the American people an investment beyond compare or valuation. I am pleased to welcome Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Pell, and Hatfield as original cosponsors of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1996.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which supports the important work of the National Institutes of Health. This bill, the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1996, will reauthorize the ongoing work of this outstanding Federal research institution. We all can take great pride in the exceptional contributions that the NIH has made to the improvement of the health of our citizens. NIH grants constitute the bulk of support for biomedical research throughout this country--almost $10 billion every year, distributed in nearly 25,000 separate grants. This unique investment of talent and dollars has one simple, overriding goal--the advancement of the health of Americans. This agency is, indeed, an extraordinary success story. To cite just one illustration: An NIH grant made possible the discovery of the BRCA- 1 gene, a genetic marker for an important form of breast cancer. Such a discovery offers great promise for new strategies for diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer and other serious illnesses. As long term commitment to further support of research into the mysteries of the human genetic code, this bill authorizes the creation of the National Human Genome Research Institute. The elevation of the National Center for Genome Research to institute status, while budget neutral, will ensure a continued focus of NIH resources for this important work. Mr. President, in addition to reauthorizing the lifesaving work of the two largest institutes, the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the bill authorizes a number of other important institutes and initiatives. Among them is research into new and resistant infections such as tuberculosis; and an Office of Rare Diseases to support research on over 2,000 uncommon diseases that, together, afflict thousands of Americans. Another critical area that this bill addresses is the education and training of the next generation of clinical researchers, the biomedical scientists who perform research that directly involves patients. This bill provides for greater support for expert training of young biomedical scientists who have elected the difficult, and increasingly competitive, careers in scientific inquiry. In addition, it provides important resources for the 75 general clinical research centers that exist in academic medical centers throughout the country. The role of NIH in clinical research is critical, since academic health centers in the 21st century will be posed with an unprecedented challenge: how to maintain their research mission in the face of a fundamentally changed health care system. These changes are the consequence of dramatic market shifts that are taking place in health care in this country. They have a potentially deleterious effect on the irreplaceable work of this country's academic health centers. Cost competition has made it particularly difficult for the continuation of many of these established institutions that frequently care for the sickest, as well as the poorest, citizens of our communities. This bill also makes substantial efforts to reduce administrative excess and duplicative infrastructure at NIH. It reduces redundant committees and reports. Every dollar saved from unnecessary administrative burdens is another dollar freed up for support of biomedical research. By its very nature, ever-expanding scientific knowledge places pressure on the limited resources for biomedical research support. Accordingly, this bill provides for a Biomedical Research Trust Fund within the Treasury. This trust fund is a first small step toward affording additional funds for the indispensable research mission in this era of shrinking Federal resources. In conclusion, Mr. President, reauthorization of the important work of the National Institutes of Health represents for the American people an investment beyond compare or valuation. I am pleased to welcome Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Pell, and Hatfield as original cosponsors of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1996.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I think it is appropriate that Senator Dole, in one of his last acts of the Senate, introduced legislation to provide for security of the Medicare trust fund. It was his strong endorsement and leadership at the beginning of the 1980's that addressed the solvency of the Social Security system. Just yesterday, he was instrumental in bringing a number of us together to address the concerns of health insurance reform. It is my hope we can reach across the aisle and forge with the administration a lasting piece of legislation addressing many of the concerns regarding health insurance reform. For nearly 18 years, Mr. President, Senator Dole and I have served as partners in representing Kansas in the U.S. Senate and in working on many other issues. We have not always agreed, but far more often we have agreed. More importantly, Mr. President, we have respected each other's dedication. Today, that partnership ends, at least in its current form. This day creates many mixed emotions. Like others in this Chamber, I will miss Bob Dole's steady presentation and his can-do attitude that has helped the Senate through so many rough times. I know Kansans also view his departure with some trepidation. At the same time, I believe that Senator Dole has made the right choice by deciding to focus all of his time, energy, and skill on the Presidential campaign. It is a mark of his dedication and commitment that he would give up so much in order to bring his very best to the challenge at hand. It also, I think, marks his confidence. In our years together here, Bob Dole and I have created a spirit of cooperation and teamwork in representing our State. There is no one who understands middle America and grassroots sentiment better than Bob Dole. That is where his roots are. We have joined forces many times to see the needs of Kansans were addressed and that the concerns of Kansans were voiced clearly and forcefully. I could not have asked for a better partner in helping me. I hope my support for him in those efforts has been worthwhile as well. Our work together has ranged across the spectrum of issues and problems. Countless hours were spent helping farmers get through the credit crunch of the 1980's. No one understood that better than Bob Dole. Today, there are family farms across our State and our Nation who still work their own lands due to Bob Dole's leadership. We have gone to bat repeatedly to assist our aviation manufacturers to get fair treatment in world markets. Today, there are thousands of aircraft workers producing airplanes that might never have been sold without Bob Dole's firm hand and persistent efforts. Senator Dole took the lead in the effort to rebuild McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, KS, after a devastating tornado swept through the outskirts of Wichita. He saw to it that every small town in Kansas had a tornado warning siren to protect its citizens. Mr. President, through all of these years, no challenge has been too large and no concern has been too small for Senator Dole. Our State motto is ad astra per aspera, ``to the stars through difficulties.'' I have never known Senator Dole to not look at a challenge and find a way to address it. He has been a tireless champion for our State in every farm bill, every tax bill, every bill of any kind that touched Kansas and, more importantly then, by extension, the Nation. As a direct result of his efforts, our State is a better place to live, to work, and to go for school. His legacy is written not merely in laws but in a better life for every Kansan. It is with a mixture of regret and pride that I say goodbye to Senator Dole today. We will miss him deeply. I will miss him most of all. I know that there is other work for him to do now, other challenges to be met, and I have no doubt at all that he will do that job and meet that challenge. Bob Dole is a remarkable man with an extraordinary life story, yet on this day all I can offer him is a heartfelt thank you for all that he has done for me and for Kansas and the Nation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the health insurance reform legislation. So I am happy to wait my turn.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I very much appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts giving me some time at this moment. I would have been happy to wait. But both the Senator from Massachusetts and myself have worked for many months on health insurance reform. I very much appreciated Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee--his efforts to help us achieve what the Senate voted on 100 to 0 for some very important health insurance reform measures. Today, I want to speak for a moment about where we stand on this issue. First, because I heard the chairman of the Budget Committee speak on the budget resolution before us, I want to speak with respect to the admiration I have for Senator Domenici and his honesty and vision regarding what is needed in our budget. Both he and Senator Exon from Nebraska, who is the ranking member, have worked many years on budget matters, and I am sure that at some point there must be a certain weariness that sets in as yet one more budget resolution comes before the Senate. But it takes dedication, which I greatly admire, on the part of the Senator from New Mexico through the years to speak to what he feels. I strongly support the vision that he has and that is required of us today. Speaking to health insurance reform, which both Senator Kennedy and myself feel is very important, negotiations are still going on. The agreement that was reached last night on this measure represents a consensus among Republican members, who have been meeting informally for some weeks. Both myself and Senator Kennedy have been in conference and negotiations ourselves to see if this issue cannot be advanced. As a participant in the process of informal negotiations among Republicans Members, I would say much was given up by Members who feel very strongly about particular provisions. For example, Members of the House of Representatives agreed to drop provisions on medical malpractice reform, which many Members there strongly supported and which was in the House-passed measure, and the multiple employer welfare arrangement, MEWA's, which would have most certainly led to a Presidential veto. Likewise, as I am sure, all realize more was added--particularly with respect to medical savings accounts--that others would like to see. I count myself among those who would have preferred a more focused bill. We added here in the Senate parity for mental illness insurance, which many here strongly support, and many in the House support. But to come to some agreement for those who question whether we can do that at this time, or not, meant that provision was dropped as well. However, I have been around here long enough to know that no one gets everything they prefer. I listened very carefully to my colleagues in the House, and it is my assessment that the proposal now on the table is what it will take to bring our efforts to fruition. There may have to be--and I guess there would be--some more minor adjustments. I want to speak particularly to the medical saving accounts provision because that is what has been perhaps the hardest and biggest hurdle to get over, and to what I believe represents a fair and credible approach to this issue. Briefly, beginning in January of next year, the medical savings accounts will be available to the self-employed and to employees of businesses with 50 or fewer employees. A study regarding the effect in the small group market on adverse collections, health cost, use of preventive care, and consumer cost would be conducted over a 2-year period. Mr. President, I believe that starting with the small group market where many of the most important issues with respect to MSA's have been raised will provide Congress with the most accurate assessment of their advantages or disadvantages on how perhaps MSA plans should be drawn that would be the best devised plan possible for medical savings accounts. This is the group where concerns have been raised about the possibility of adverse collections and where States have developed the greatest expertise in providing insurance access to small businesses. The proposal goes on to extend MSA's to individuals and employers with 50 or more employees on January 1 in the year 2000. Unless the Congress acts to delay or repeal the expansion, separate votes would be guaranteed on both the individual and large employer expansion. In addition, the proposal includes new means for consumer protection standards as a condition of deductibility. These provisions assure that the consumers will have sufficient information to judge this new product, and they can take into account a recent Rand study showing that adverse collections can be minimized by limiting the level of MSA deductibles. First, MSA plans would be required to disclose the information about cost-sharing requirements, deductibles, and limitations on coverage, if any, under the plan. Second, MSA plans could have a maximum deductible of $5,000 for individuals, or $7,500 for family coverage, indexed for medical inflation. That is a high deductible, but it would, we thought, be better than a floor being placed and that a ceiling should be placed. Third, once deductible limits are reached, individuals would be required to pay on average no more than 30 percent cost sharing for their health benefits. In addition, six adjustments to the structure of the House MSA provisions were made in response to recommendations by the administration. These modifications could tighten tax rules regarding any possible abuse. Finally, it should not be forgotten that there are core elements of the health insurance bill. Those dealing with portability and preexisting conditions are firmly in place. Those are provisions which we all agreed on were very important, Mr. President. They are the ones Senator Kennedy cared about and that I cared about. We argued no amendment should be added in order to achieve those core provisions. But then that is not the way the House and Senate worked their will. Amendments were added in both Houses. In addition, of course, the agreement includes Senate provisions dealing with deductibility and long-term care insurance, which will make health insurance not only more portable but also more affordable for millions of Americans. These are important changes, and I am confident that further reflection on this proposal will produce a public law, I am absolutely confident, that we can come to an agreement on both sides of the aisle on with the administration to achieve health insurance reform which will benefit millions of Americans. I recognize that compromise is always difficult. It was a difficult process in committee and on the Senate floor. As an even broader range of issues were put on the table by the House, it became even more of a challenge to find common ground among disparate views. Nevertheless, I think that each of us recognize the need to compromise, and I believe this proposal will strike a fair and equitable balance which will put meaningful health care reform within our grasp. Mr. President, I have had concerns about the medical savings accounts. I think we need to go slow and understand them--understand where there may be difficulties and how to achieve them in a way that will benefit many Americans, particularly those who have not had any other access to health insurance. But, by doing it slowly and phasing it in and studying it carefully, I think it can and should be achieved. So I hope that as we continue negotiations, we can actually, over time, achieve some agreements on the proposals in health insurance reform that will allow us to succeed in efforts that we know will benefit many, many. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may say so, I know that there is no one who cares more about this than Senator Kennedy, as well, and Senator Domenici and Senator Wellstone went a long way in proposing something which many of us hoped would work and be successful in compromise. At this point, it has not been. But it has been probably the question of how much further we can get in negotiations. I very much appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts giving some time to discuss the health insurance reform effort, and I appreciate all that he is doing and continues to do to try to help achieve a successful resolution. I thank the Chair. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. KASSEBAUM

Mr. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, yesterday three Swiss Red Cross relief workers were killed in Burundi. I want to express my condolences to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the families of the deceased. The ICRC staff were attacked as they returned from a project providing humanitarian relief to the civilian Burundian population. ICRC is the largest humanitarian organization in Burundi, providing water to over 200,000 people, as well as cans, pots, and blankets. The Red Cross agricultural programs keeps 150,000 people alive. Over the years, when I have traveled in Africa, I have always been impressed with the courageous work of the ICRC. From Somalia to Rwanda, Angola to Liberia, the ICRC performs critical functions--often, as we saw yesterday, at great personal risk. In many of these crises, I simply do not know what we would do with the ICRC. The International Red Cross has long been identified as a neutral organization which meticulously avoids taking sides in armed conflicts. For that reason, the brutal attack on the relief officials--in a vehicle clearly marked with Red Cross emblems--is particularly outrageous. Mr. President, while much of the rest of the world--and even most of Africa--is moving forward into the 21st century, some countries continue to deteriorate into almost medieval levels of brutality with a total disregard for human life. Over the past year, the violence in Burundi has increased dramatically as both the Burundian military and rebels based in Zaire have killed civilians at will. While the extremists pursue a strategy of intimidation, the civilians of Burundi suffer. In recent months, thousands of innocent people have been killed. Tens of thousands have been displaced from their homes, many forced into Zaire and Tanzania. As the level of violence grows, Burundi risks spiraling totally out of control into a cycle of genocidal brutality. Mr. President, it is difficult to know what to do in this type of situation. Clearly, as security permits, we will support humanitarian relief operations. The United States and our Europeans allies will continue to engage in active diplomatic efforts to stop the killing. I commend the administration, particularly National Security Adviser Tony Lake, for taking a trip to Burundi to signal high-level concern. And the United Nations is exploring a numbers of options to address the continued violence. But I believe the primary responsibility--and the most effective means--to stop the killing lies with those on the African Continent. First and foremost, the Burundians themselves must stand up and say that enough is enough. The military--the primary perpetrators of the violence--must end the brutality and perform as a neutral, professional force protecting, not killing, their citizens. The Hutu rebels based in Zaire must stop their campaign of terror. All parties must stop spreading fear and pursue their goals through dialog. Mr. President, the neighboring states--those most affected by the insecurity in Burundi--must play an active role in reestablishing stability in the region. Former President Nyerere of Tanzania is leading an active diplomatic initiative to bring the Burundian parties together. I commend President Nyerere for his efforts, and the United States should continue to strongly support him. I would urge the Organization of African Unity to become more engaged in Burundi. The Secretary General of the OAU has issued a statement on Burundi. But the OAU, in order to be relevant, must stop talking about ending conflict and begin to take actions to stop conflicts. Finally, as the primary host to refugees from Rwanda and Burundi, Zaire has a clear interest in promoting peace in Burundi. Yet, all evidence points to the continued destabilizing role of Zaire in central Africa. President Mobutu and Prime Muinister Kengo must use their influence to stop the arms trafficking to the Hutu rebels based in Zaire. They must arrest the intimidators spreading fear among refugees. And they must improve security on the border. Over the years, I have been one of the first to criticize President Mobutu for his human rights and economic policies in Zaire. He has destroyed the physical and social infrastructure of his country, potentially one of Africa's richest and most powerful. Now he is feeding instability in Burundi and Rwanda despite the interests of the Zairian people in stability. President Mobutu should understand that his role in central Africa will be noted and remembered by the United States. Mr. President, once again I want to express my deep sadness over the brutal murder of the three International Committee of the Red Cross relief workers in Burundi. They died in a noble cause: helping innocent civilians stay alive. It is my hope that their deaths will be among the last in Burundi--and not just one more tragic event in the continued slide into uncontrollable ethnic brutality.