Nancy Kassebaum

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today Senator Grassley in introducing the Fairness in Judicial Taxation Act of 1996. I want to commend Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, and Congressman Manzullo for their leadership on this important issue. In recent years, a number of judges have ordered local governments to impose taxes on citizens as a means to remedy a constitutional violation. In many of these cases, I have believed that Federal courts exceeded their limited jurisdiction under article III of the Constitution. While I fully understand the role of the judiciary in protecting constitutional rights, I do not believe that judges should be in the business of needlessly imposing taxes. Our legislation addresses this issue by requiring Federal courts to meet certain criteria before imposing a tax. The Federal court must find that: There is no other means available to remedy the deprivation of rights, the tax will not contribute to the deprivation intended to be remedied, the tax will not result in a loss of revenue, the tax will not disproportionately affect any racial, ethnic, or national group, and plans submitted by a locality will not effectively redress the deprivation. These five criteria are similar to the analysis any effective legislature would undertake before imposing a tax on its people. It is a reasonable, moderate approach to a difficult issue. Mr. President, in 1990, I joined Senator Danforth in supporting a constitutional amendment which would prohibit judicial taxation. Senator Thurmond has advocated a legislative solution to this same issue. While these various approaches have not yet been successful, I believe they represent the emerging consensus that courts should stay out of the business of imposing taxes. I would hope that the legislation we are introducing today will contribute to the important debate about this issue. Mr. President, my interest in the issue of judicial taxation grew out of the experience of the Kansas City, MO, school system. In that case, the Federal judge has essentially taken over the school system by imposing a tax on the local population in order to finance implementation of a magnet school plan. His intervention, I would argue, has created an undercurrent of ill will, exacerbated racial tension, and done little to solve, over the long term, the problems with the Kansas City of school system. School desegregation is not an easy issue. It is fraught with emotion, and there are no magic answers. But imposing a comprehensive solution from the bench--without the support of the community--has not proven effective. We simply must find a better approach to this problem--an approach which brings a community together. I, for one, have strongly supported neighborhood schools. One of the real strengths of our education system has been in its local base. The sense of connection among students, parents, school officials, and communities is a vitally important source of support for children. When education loses its roots in the neighborhood, we lose the commitment and emphasis which are critical to academic success. Moreover, at a time when the stresses and outright breakdown of many families have denied to children the strong and positive messages they should be receiving from the parents, the sense of connection and belonging that a school can provide becomes even more vital. I fear that complex, Rube Goldberg solutions involving busing, magnet schools, and the such--financied by judicially imposed taxes--undermine community support for effective schooling. The business at hand is to guarantee that all our students have an opportunity for a quality education in their neighborhoods. That is where we should devote our energies and our financial resources. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Grassley in proposing legislation which deals with a key aspect of this problem-- the imposition of taxes by Federal courts. It is my hope that the Senate will act expeditiously on this important legislation, and communities will again work together to improve education for all their children.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, too often we are ready to criticize those who work for the Government but rarely recognize individuals who have dedicated their lives to public service. That is why, today, I would like to pay tribute to Bertha Glotzbach of the U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID]. On April 23, 1996, Ms. Glotzbah completed 55 years of Government service. Born on the Fourth of July raised in my home State of Kansas, Ms. Glotzbach attended Strickler's Business College in Topeka. Her Government career began just before World War II on April 23, 1941, with the Department of Labor. Ms. Glotzbach first worked for the Bureau of Labor Statistics and later with the Special Assistant for International Relations to the Secretary of Labor. In 1949, Ms. Glotzbach joined the Economic Cooperation Agency, which Congress created in 1948 to administer the Marshall plan. She has worked continuously for foreign assistance agencies ever since. In addition to the numerous awards and commendations Ms. Glotzbach has received over the years, her service with USAID and its predecessor agencies sets a 47-year record. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure and gratitude that I rise today with USAID, to honor and congratulate Ms. Glotzbach for her dedicated service to the Nation.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise to discuss, again, legislation that has been before us, which is support for the Teamwork for Employees and Management Act, the TEAM Act. During the past couple of days, we have had some lengthy debate on this legislation, as well as, of course, repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax, and raising the minimum wage. I thought it might be useful at this point to review some of the debate back and forth on the TEAM Act, what it does and does not do, and dispel some of the myths that have surfaced over the course of the debate. The TEAM Act responds to a series of decisions by the National Labor Relations Board that invalidated numerous employee involvement programs. The NLRB decisions that have been made regarding employee- employer relationships have been very broad. They found that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 prohibited supervisors from meeting with workers in committees to discuss workplace issues like health and safety, working conditions, family leave, and other important areas of mutual concern. The TEAM Act simply establishes a safe harbor in Federal labor law to permit these types of employee involvement programs, where workers meet with supervisors to discuss issues of mutual concern, to continue to exist without running afoul of Federal labor law. Under the TEAM Act, workers may discuss quality, productivity, efficiency, health and safety, or any other issues that are important to them. It seems to make so much sense, Mr. President, and it is very hard for me to understand why this is being so vigorously challenged and fought by the unions in this country, particularly the chairman of the NLRB, William Gould, who does not support the TEAM Act, but does say that we need a clarification of the law so that there can be the ability of employers and employees to come together with a clearer understanding of what is within the parameters of the law. I believe that workers have important contributions to make to improve the quality of their work life and the quality of the product or service their company delivers. America needs to harness workers' ideas and put them to good use. They are the ones who are there making the day-to-day effort, who best know the whole condition of workplace health and the safety of the atmosphere--on the line, perhaps, in a factory--and can come up with innovative suggestions. The legislation also has important worker protections. For instance, teams may not have, claim, or seek authority to negotiate collective- bargaining agreements, or amend existing collective-bargaining agreements, and the TEAM Act also clearly prohibits employers from bypassing an existing union if the workers have chosen to be represented by a union. I do not fault the NLRB for the breadth of their decisions invalidating employee involvement. I think they did the best job they could under the circumstances. Our Federal labor laws were written in the 1930's at a time when employers had used company unions to avoid recognizing and bargaining with unions after workers had selected union representation. So the Congress wrote our Federal labor laws very broadly to prohibit that type of activity. In fact, the law was written so broadly that it invalidated the legitimate employee-involvement programs that we see today. So the TEAM Act permits these legitimate employee-involvement programs to move forward, while requiring firms to recognize and negotiate with independent unions if that is what the workers want. Why do we need the TEAM Act? This has been mentioned many times. Because it has worked very successfully in the union businesses where the union shops exist. There have been many times effective employee- management teamwork. But we have, I think, also heard compelling cases of why there is great uncertainty. During the debate over the last 2 days, some of my colleagues have asked, if there are so many employee-involvement programs going on right now, why then is it necessary and why do we need the TEAM Act? I will respond to my colleagues that the NLRB interpreted the law so broadly that it has cast great uncertainty on the legality of all employee-involvement programs. Some companies have disbanded their teams, either by order of the NLRB or because they are concerned with whether they are legal and fearing they might not feel it is worth the effort to even try, and other companies are not expanding their existing teams. For example, during our committee hearings on the TEAM Act, we heard from David Wellins, a senior vice president of a human resource consulting firm in Pittsburgh, PA. Mr. Wellins' firm assists clients, from Fortune 500 companies to small nonprofits, to establish high- performance work organizations. Mr. Wellins testified: On manufacturing plant floors and in corporate offices across this country, work teams are making employees and their companies more productive than at any other time in the history of this country. . . The second point I want to make [is that the NLRB decisions] have dramatically dampened the enthusiasm for teams. Many of the Nation's leading companies, both union and nonunion, are confused about which aspects of teams are allowable and correspondingly reluctant to proceed with team initiatives. Mr. Wellins then cited several examples, including a large Midwest bank, a major beverage manufacturer, and a consumer product packaging plant that eliminated their employer involvement program due to the uncertainty which has been caused by the NLRB's interpretation of Federal labor law. It is clear from Mr. Wellins' testimony that we need a legislative solution to this problem. Some of my colleagues have also asked whether the TEAM Act permits employers to establish company or sham unions. The answer is absolutely not. This is very clear, and has been very misleading in the debate so far that has gone back and forth for a couple of days. The TEAM Act permits workers to choose independent union representation at any time. The TEAM Act does not replace traditional unions, and once workers select union representation, the employer must recognize and then negotiate with the union. Moreover, the Team Act specifically states that employee teams may not ``have, claim, or seek authority to negotiate or enter into collective bargaining agreements with the employer or to amend existing collective bargaining agreements.'' It does not in any way interfere with the collective bargaining agreements that are in place and working and clearly understood. So the TEAM Act does not permit employers to create company or sham unions. Mr. President, one of the other issues that has come forth also during the debate is who selects team members? This has been debated in our committee hearings as well. Some of the colleagues have asked whether the TEAM Act promotes true employee involvement because the legislation does not mandate that workers select all team members. I respond to my colleagues who have questioned this that the TEAM Act avoids mandating a one-size-fits-all for the employee-involvement program. Instead, it recognizes that there are a variety of worker teams that exist and would encourage workers and managers to develop flexible teams that best suit their needs. Sometimes workers select team members, sometimes the team members volunteer, and sometimes the whole company is run on the team concept. So the question of team member selection is moot. At other times, particularly if a worker has a necessary job skill required by the team, such as appointing an EMT to a safety team, the employer may choose team members. Focusing on team member selection really misses the point because the real issue is management commitment to employee involvement. Workers are not stupid. They know when management values employee involvement, and workers quickly tire of making suggestions if management will not follow through on them; therefore, it is not going to succeed. It really has to be a management commitment even more than a worker commitment. So it would be useless for managers to limit teams to their favorite workers, because the value of those employee ideas would be limited. It really has to be a commitment that is on both sides, recognizing the changes that are taking place in our work force today, not in an attempt to undermine the unions but in an attempt to strengthen the initiative, the productivity, and the constructive environment instead of a suspicious, adversarial environment that can occur in the workplace. I think it has a very positive benefit. Ironically, the whole idea of team member selection reveals how narrowly critics are viewing employee involvement. They are assuming that there should be only one type of program, where the employees select their team representative. But many times, team members do not represent their coworkers on teams. Many times, the whole plant is run by self-directed work teams. So there are no employee representatives since everyone serves on a team. We cannot categorize every type of team in America, and we should not try. Instead, we should give workers and supervisors the flexibility to craft their workplace needs and craft how they can best be met. I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation. I think, Mr. President, it offers us an opportunity, that we have not had before, to clarify a situation that will allow us to move forward to meet the needs of a workplace, that will allow us to be ever more competitive, ever more imaginative, ever more inventive, and create an employee involvement that I think will add a lot of vitality in our workplace today. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I tried to be recognized earlier because I wanted to ask the distinguished minority leader a question when he was on the floor talking about the TEAM Act. I find it hard to think that the people of South Dakota would not be very supportive of the ability to have employers and employees form teams in which they can talk about conditions in their own company. These teams clearly will enhance the quality of work, the quality of working relationships, and the productivity of the company. I think there is broad support for that. The distinguished majority leader indicated that President Clinton in the State of the Union speech mentioned the importance of working together as a team and how that enhances the productivity and the competitiveness of American industry. We all know how important that is today. The other side of the aisle suggests that the TEAM Act permits sham unions. That is not correct, Mr. President. The legislation does not permit sham unions in any way. The question was raised, why do we need the legislation? I would suggest that one of the reasons we need the TEAM Act is that we need clarity regarding the barriers in Federal labor law regarding worker and management cooperation. William Gould, who was appointed Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board in 1994 by President Clinton, made the following statement on employee involvement to a seminar at Indiana University School of Law on February 29, 1996. I want to state that Chairman Gould is opposed to the TEAM Act, but he did say that although he opposed it, he does feel that an amendment to section 8(a)(2) is necessary to promote employee involvement. He said: Nonetheless, as I wrote three years ago an agenda for reform, a revision of 8(a)(2) is desirable. The difficulties involved in determining what constitutes a labor organization under the act as written subjects employees and employers to unnecessary and wasteful litigation, and mandates lay people to employ counsel when they are only attempting to promote dialog and enhanced participation and cooperation. Mr. President, I can think of no more effective statement than that of the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. This is not a question of wanting to roll back 60 years of labor law; not at all. It is really designed to enhance labor law so that we can enter a new century and a new time in the strongest, most productive fashion. And it is only common sense, Mr. President, that would say employers and employees should be able to sit down at the table and reason together. This is not an effort to do away with unions. It is an effort to bring some clarity to section 8(a)(2), as was mentioned by Chairman Gould, so that there can be an understanding of what indeed constitutes, or does not constitute, a violation of Federal labor law. I would just suggest, Mr. President, that workers know their jobs better than anyone else. They are the ones who are there day in and day out listening to customers, making a product, and delivering it to clients. Their contributions improve productivity, reduce environmental waste, increase quality, and perhaps most important raise job satisfaction. Participation means that there is a commitment then to the success of that company. Yet Federal labor laws have stood in the way of unleashing, I suggest because of this lack of charity, a vast reservoir of human capital in America's workplaces. Yesterday there was I thought an exceptionally good exchange, and an elaboration of why the TEAM Act is important, between the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft]. Just to quote from Mr. Ashcroft briefly: More importantly than trying to strike a balance from Washington, DC, we should provide American workers with the ability to strike that balance for themselves. Senator Ashcroft went on to lay out examples of reasons why this would become very apparent. Senator Jeffords had said, ``Why in the world would unions oppose this?'' It really is not trying to undermine the unions as has been portrayed. He said, ``They are nervous because they have been going down, and they did not want to do anything that would in any way enhance the workers and management to get together to improve productivity. Is it being done out of fear that, indeed, the unions would no longer be able to control the agenda?'' I hope not, Mr. President, because that is not the intent of this legislation. I myself would like to provide an example to illustrate the obstacles to employee involvement. A group of workers in a manufacturing plant want to discuss health and safety issues with their supervisor. The supervisor forms a safety committee with the foreman and three or four workers and the group meet once a week. The workers know that the floor is often slippery, and workers have fallen causing injuries and significant worker compensation costs for the company. The workers also note that most accidents happened on Mondays. So perhaps a brief safety reinforcement briefing at the start of the shift coming off the weekend would improve plant safety. Acting on these employee suggestions the supervisor makes sure that mops are available to mop the floors and institutes a 5-minute safety meeting for workers each Monday morning. Sounds reasonable. I would think most of us would agree that these suggestions are reasonable ideas for workers to bring to their supervisor. What is incredible is that this type of employee involvement is illegal under Federal labor law. The National Labor Relations Act actually prohibits nonunion employees and supervisors from meeting in committees to discuss workplace issues like health and safety. I have never viewed the TEAM Act as a union-management issue. Instead, I think it is a quality of life issue for workers who do not want to just say, ``We are on the floor of our workplace and do what we are told to do and have no input into what we see may be something of real benefit in improving the quality of life there.'' In the example I just mentioned the workers are the ones who observed the wet floors. They are the ones who were there. They are the ones who are injured when they slip on the floors, and they are the ones who have suggestions for dealing with the problem. This, I think, is the quality of work life issue for workers, and not a labor-management issue. And for firms, employee involvement is a necessary way to enhance the efficiency of the plant. That has been proven over and over again where, indeed, companies have had team relationships that have proved successful. I think since the 1980's many American companies have tried to copy what companies were doing in Japan, because frequently there were employee-employer relationships that our Japanese competitors were using some years ago that were found to be successful. We can even improve on what the Japanese have done. I would suggest, Mr. President, that employee involvement is a necessary way to enhance the efficiency of our workplaces. And more importantly, there are significant contributions that I believe workers can make with innovative and thoughtful ways of improving the workplace. Unfortunately, the National Labor Relations Board has issued a series of decisions beginning in 1992 that interpreted Federal labor law to prohibit many forms of employee involvement. These decisions have created uncertainty as to what types of employee involvement programs are permissible, as Chairman Gould pointed out. These decisions have cast doubt on all employee involvement in nonunion settings. In union settings it works all right. But in nonunion settings it has raised suspicion, doubt, fear, and an aggressiveness that I think has proven totally counterproductive on the part of the unions. I think we need a legislative solution to address the problem. Mr. President, the TEAM Act removes the barriers in Federal labor law to employee involvement. It clarifies what that involvement can be. At the same time, the legislation maintains protections to ensure that workers have the right to select union representation. The TEAM Act assures that employee involvement programs may not negotiate collective bargaining agreements or seek in any way to displace independent unions. And nothing in the TEAM Act permits employers to bypass an existing union if that is what the union and that is what the workers have chosen. Finally, I point out that the Congress prohibited company unions in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. They were prohibited then because firms were negotiating with company unions and refusing to recognize independent unions which the workers had selected. But the TEAM Act requires employers to recognize and negotiate with independent union representatives if that is what the workers have decided they want. It really is urging that workers become more involved. The workers are encouraged to participate and employers are encouraged to listen to their employees. I suggest, Mr. President, that the TEAM Act is good for workers. It is good for firms. It is good for America. It is not attempting to roll back labor law. It is attempting to enhance it in ways that I think will be far more constructive and productive. I yield the floor. Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report on the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 1996, S. 641. This bipartisan legislation reauthorizes critical health care programs which provide services for individuals living with HIV and AIDS. Accordingly, I urge the Senate to move expeditiously to pass this conference report, which has already moved through the House with near-unanimous support. The Ryan White CARE Act plays a critical role in improving the quality and availability of medical and support services for individuals living with HIV disease and AIDS. As the HIV epidemic continues, the need for this important legislation remains. Achieving a compromise on the Ryan White CARE Act reauthorization bill has been a long process, and I am delighted to see it come to a completion. The give-and-take involved in the conference rarely leaves everyone satisfied with every aspect of the final agreement. I believe, however, that the compromise bill offers constructive change, and I am particularly pleased that it provides greater equity for rural states through changes in the funding formulas. The present distribution formulas have led to disparity in funding for individuals living with AIDS based on where they live. When the CARE Act was first authorized in 1990, the epidemic was primarily a coastal urban-area problem. Now it reaches the smallest and most rural areas of this country. Our agreement ensures that the amount of Federal AIDS support for an individual in a rural State more closely approximates the support for an individual living in a high AIDS population area. This agreement ensures that any individual living with AIDS, regardless of where he or she lives, will have similar support from the Federal Government. Mr. President, with any formula change, there is always concern about the potential for disruption of services to individuals now receiving them. To address this concern, the bill maintains hold-harmless floors designed to assure that no entity receives less than 95 percent of its 1995 allocation over the next 5 years, and all entities are held harmless in fiscal year 1996. The Senate-House HIV testing compromise shifts the emphasis from mandatory testing of infants to voluntary testing of pregnant women. It provides $10 million to help States meet CDC guidelines for voluntary HIV counseling, testing, and treatment for pregnant women. I believe the emphasis on voluntary testing for pregnant women makes sense and is an appropriate compromise. Medical technology today enables us to greatly reduce the chance that a HIV-positive mother will pass HIV to her newborn if she receives proper treatment prior to delivery. This is why I felt it was so critical to focus our Federal resources on voluntary testing of mothers rather than testing newborns, when it would be too late to try to prevent most HIV transmission. I believe that the changes proposed by this legislation will assure the continued effectiveness of the Ryan White CARE Act by maintaining its successful components and by strengthening its ability to meet emerging challenges. Putting together this legislation has involved the time and commitment of a wide variety of individuals and organizations. I want to acknowledge all of their efforts. I particularly appreciate the constructive and cooperative approach which the Senate conferees, Senators Jeffords, Frist, Kennedy, and Dodd, lent to the development of this legislation. I wish to thank both the Senate and the house conferees for their efforts in crafting the compromises reflected in this conference bill. I also wish to thank their staffs, including Sharon Winn, Susan Ramthun, Jonelle Rowe, M.D., Joe Musker, Michael Iskowitz, Seth Kilbourn, Jane Loewenson--as well as Marty Ross, M.D., James Wade, M.D. and Kent Bradley, M.D. of my staff--for their hard work in reaching this agreement.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, for the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I report favorably a nomination list in the Public Health Service which was printed in full in the Congressional Record of November 9, 1995, and ask unanimous consent, to save the cost of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators. The PRESIDENT OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The nominations ordered to lie on the Secretary's desk were printed in the Record of November 9, 1995, at the end of the Senate proceedings.)

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, as I stand here today with my colleagues discussing a new plan to balance the budget, I can guess what many Americans are probably thinking: ``Here they go again.'' The budget has been the catalyst driving our agenda for more than a year, from our vote on the balanced budget amendment to the debates over the budget resolution, budget reconciliation package, and annual spending bills. Haven't every one of us, Republican and Democrat, stood up on this floor and professed--repeatedly--our support for a balanced budget? Why then don't we have a balanced budget? I can guess something else Americans are thinking, because I hear it from many Kansans: We should run Government as we'd run a business, and balance our books. I agree, Mr. President, but it is more complex than that, for better or worse, and it is part of the reason we still do not have a budget agreement. When we discuss the Federal budget, we are discussing more than a ledger sheet. We are discussing national priorities with real consequences, and we do not all agree on the priorities or their consequences. Finding middle ground becomes a challenge of its own. Yet we cannot allow the enormity of our task--or the controversy surrounding it-- to scare us away from trying to restore sound fiscal policy. Because we are discussing an endeavor of broad national significance, I do not think we can overemphasize the importance of fairness. The vast majority of Americans say they are in favor of balancing the budget, whether or not they realize what it means for programs they might like. We all talk about tough choices here, but I think we have seen that Americans are not likely to accept those tough choices unless they are convinced they also are fair. And that is what this budget is--tough but fair. It is tough on welfare, placing a 5-year lifetime limit on benefits. But it also keeps a safety net in place for children. For example, we would allow States to ease work requirements for parents who cannot find child care for children who are not yet school-aged. In my mind, Mr. President, that's fair. Neither is the plan selective in its toughness. One thing we all hear when we talk to constituents is that Congress must not exempt itself from these tough choices. I agree, and have been pleased to see us turn a discerning eye on ourselves--foregoing, for example, our automatic cost-of-living increases for 3 years running, as well as reducing overall spending for the legislative branch by 9 percent last year. This budget proposal, which calls for increases in retirement contributions from Federal agencies and employees, also reforms judicial and congressional retirement by conforming their accrual and contribution rates to those of all other Federal employees. Once again, a necessary and fair step. This budget is tough but fair when it comes to discretionary programs as well. By holding discretionary spending to a level slightly below fiscal year 1995 for the next 7 years, we can achieve savings without crippling important programs, from education and crime control, to housing and transportation. In any case, it is not discretionary spending that poses the real long-term challenge to balancing the budget. That challenge comes from rapidly growing entitlement programs. We do not ignore that challenge in this budget, making significant reforms to small and large programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Both of those vital programs would continue to grow, but at a more manageable pace. And the way we would find savings would be fair. From Medicare, for example, we have found a balance between reforms that affect providers and those that affect recipients. Throughout this process, I have said that we should not go too far in cutting provider payments. If we do, we cannot expect that Medicare beneficiaries will continue to have access to high-quality health care services, especially in rural settings. Our budget proposal is tough on taxes, too, eliminating unnecessary deductions and making other tax reforms to save $25 billion. We would give the Internal Revenue Service authority to deduct payments from the Federal wages, retirement checks, or Social Security checks of delinquent taxpayers. That is a tough proposal, Mr. President, but it is only fair to millions of conscientious Americans who faithfully pay their taxes. Those reforms and others in our package allow us to propose modest but important tax cuts to middle-class families in the form of a $250- per-child tax credit. The credit could be increased to as much as $500 if parents contribute to an individual retirement account in their child's name. The package includes deductions for educational expenses and the interest paid on student loans, and it also offers important incentives to investment and growth. A few years ago, I worked on another bipartisan piece of budget legislation, that time with Senator Grassley and Senator Biden. You might recall that we would have frozen all Federal spending for 1 year. We did so knowing at the time that such a proposal might be viewed as austere or even rash, but then, as now, our budget crisis warranted a bold step. The idea of fairness, of every program contributing its share toward a goal that eventually would benefit them all, was appealing to me, as it was to many Americans. This budget proposal, while not taking the shape of a formal freeze, retains that appeal for me. It is a budget that calls for shared responsibility, that neither heaps the burden of that responsibility on a single group nor exempts others from doing their share. Moreover, the shared responsibility will pay off in the end. The tough choices we make today will preserve fundamental programs for the future. But the longer we delay, the more drastic the steps will become to keep even the most essential services viable. Senator Simpson talked about this on the floor earlier this week, as he and Senator Kerrey have many times before. If we do nothing, in less than 20 years our choices will be made for us, because by then, all of our revenues will be consumed by mandatory spending. We will be forced to react with huge tax increases or draconian entitlement spending cuts. Then, our choices will not be tough--they will be impossible. We can avoid that impossible situation. There is no denying that this bipartisan budget is tough, but it is fair --fair to seniors, fair to working families, fair to people struggling to get back on their feet, and above all, fair to our young people and our future. For them, the ultimate in unfairness is inaction. Let us be fair to them and consider this budget proposal as a serious step toward fiscal responsibility. Mr. President, I commend Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux, who have long been guiding lights in attempting to pull together a bipartisan effort for a balanced budget. I am sure there are many eyes that glaze over at this point as we talk about a budget once again and a balanced budget and say, ``Here they go again.'' But I would like to suggest, Mr. President, that this was a missed opportunity. We must pull together to lay out a roadmap for our country in the future, because everyone desires sound fiscal policy and wants to see our goal of a balanced budget. A budget is a catalyst that really sets our agenda. It establishes our priorities. It provides a roadmap. Some people say, ``Well, why can you not get to a balanced budget? We have to balance our budget in our businesses. We attempt to balance our budgets in our homes. Why, then, do we not have a balanced budget?'' I think that one of the reasons is that when we discuss the Federal budget, we are discussing more than a ledger sheet. We are discussing national priorities with real consequences, and we do not all agree on the priorities or the consequences. Finding middle ground becomes a challenge to everyone. Yet, we cannot allow the enormity of our task or the controversy surrounding it to scare us away from trying to restore sound fiscal policy. What I believe the initiative does that we have before us in this budget presentation is fairness and tough choices. It touches everybody, and that, perhaps, is one of the reasons that I think we can come together and say we have not set one group or another group aside. It makes changes that will affect everyone. This takes us to a balanced budget. Is it important to us today, as we struggle with many issues, but all issues really are reflected in our budget. I think, most of all, what it says is that we can accomplish something here and accomplish it in a fair way, a tough way, and a bipartisan way. It will be in the best interest not only of today, as we provide priorities and initiatives in our policies, but for the future. I suggest, Mr. President, that if we fail now, we will have failed for the future generations. That is why I think this is a monumental opportunity and a challenge. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 23, 1996, at 11:00 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing Tuesday, April 23, at 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD- 406), on S. 1285, the Accelerated Cleanup and Environmental Recovery Act of 1996 (``Superfund''), as modified by an amendment in the nature of a substitute, Senate Amendment Number 3563, dated March 21, 1996.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 23, 1996, to conduct a hearing about the status of assets held in Swiss banks deposited by European Jews and others in the years preceding the Holocaust.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Tuesday, April 23, 1996 session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the reauthorization of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet to conduct a mark up during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 23, 1996 on the committee's letter to the Senate Committee on the Budget containing the committee's budget views and estimates on the President's budget request for fiscal year 1997 for Indian programs. The business meeting/ mark up will be held at 9 p.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 23, 1996, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on ``Proposed Constitutional Amendment To Establish a Bill of Rights for Crime Victims''.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, April 23, 1996, for a hearing on organ tissue donation awareness.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, first before we go to the closing statements on the health insurance reform bill, I would like to yield the floor 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his support on this legislation. If I may speak for a few moments in closing before our vote this afternoon on the health insurance legislation. For a bill that is a very modest bill with a broad consensus of support, the Health Insurance Reform Act certainly has attracted a lot of controversy. It is not a Trojan pony. It is a bill that was carefully put together, learning from the mistakes of the past and building together in the Labor and Human Resources Committee legislation that we believed could garner the broadest possible support and yet represent a meaningful step forward in health care legislation. During the debate in the last Congress on health care, there were many questions raised of particular concern to most people. One was portability, a sense of insecurity where many Americans found they were not able to maintain health insurance if they lost their job or changed jobs. That is what we started with--something that is clearly, I believe, a small but important step forward. It is what I believe will be very valuable to many people in this country. We recognized we were only going to be able to achieve success if the bill had the broadest support possible. And indeed, the legislation has garnered over 60 cosponsors. From there, of course, the legislation has grown to be more expansive than what we initially started with. It has been our goal all along, Senator Kennedy as the ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee and myself, to say that amendments which did not have broad-based support--amendments which were controversial--were ones that we would have to object to, whether we favored them individually or opposed them individually. And that is what we have tried to do throughout this debate. This legislation now reflects, I think, two very positive amendments that had unanimous support here on the Senate floor and that were offered by the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, and Senator Dole, who has been a long supporter of these two initiatives. One was to increase the percentage of deduction that would be allowed to those who are self-employed from 30 to 80 percent. The second was to provide tax deductions for long-term care coverage, an issue which many of us have believed was very important and of which Senator Dole has long been a leader. Those were valuable additions to the underlying bill. As my colleagues know, Senator Kennedy has for many years in his legislative career in the Senate, both as chairman of the Labor Committee and as ranking member, been a strong advocate of improving the health care system. This bill certainly does not go as far as Senator Kennedy would like it to go, but he was realistic about the possibilities of what we could achieve with a more limited bill. Whether this legislation helps 25 million people, as has been estimated by the General Accounting Office, or whether it only helps 10 million people or if it helps 50 million people, the important fact is that the Health Insurance Reform Act does provide some peace of mind for those who desperately want to have some assurance that they will not be excluded from coverage because of a preexisting medical condition if they lose their job or change their job. That is an important sense of security for many Americans, and I believe one of the main reasons this legislation has garnered such strong support. It is my hope, Mr. President, that out of this bipartisan effort we can go to conference and we can come through conference with a bill that will be acceptable to everyone, because what we can accomplish with this more limited legislation will be of value and far better to have accomplished than to try for too much and to fail again. Other aspects that have been added as amendments in both the House and the Senate, may have some value. But because they are extremely controversial, I would suggest that they need to be debated on their own merits at another time. The clear danger is that if we add too much, we will again fail to deliver real reform for the American people. Mr. President, this is an effort that has had a great deal of help along the way from all sides--from consumers, from the medical community, from the insurance community, from employers, and certainly from colleagues in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. I particularly thank staff members who have worked tirelessly on this effort, certainly on my own staff, Dean Rosen, who has spent months and months trying to pull together a consensus of support, as well as Susan Hattan, Rebecca Jones, and Ann Rufo, and all of the staff of the Republican members of the Labor and Human Resources Committee. I also thank David Nexon and Lauren Ewers of Senator Kennedy's staff for their hard work and dedication on this issue as well. I do not think today's vote would have been possible without the efforts of Senator Kennedy, who has championed this legislation even though, as I said earlier, his own interests would have been more expansive than what we would have been able to achieve. It also would not have been possible without the support of those on my side of the aisle, as well, who have been willing to settle for what is possible and of greatest value to most people. So it has been a collaborative effort. It has been an effort that garnered unanimous support when it came out of the committee in August, and I believe will have if not unanimous support here in the U.S. Senate, close to that. I think it will be an important moment in advancing health care efforts on the part of the U.S. Government today. I want to thank the staff who worked countless hours on this legislation. I want to thank Susan Hattan, Dean Rosen, Rebecca Jones, and Anne Rufo of my staff for their contributions and persistence in helping to make this legislation a reality. I want to thank David Nexon and Lauren Ewers of Senator Kennedy's staff for their hard work and dedication. And I want to commend the Republican staff of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee: Elaina Goldstein of Senator Jefford's staff, Vince Ventimiglia of Senator Coat's staff, Kimberly Spaulding with Senator Gregg, Susan Ramthun with Senator Frist, Saira Sultan of Senator DeWine's staff, Annie Billings of Senator Ashcroft's staff. Greg Willhauck with Senator Abraham, and Tammi Brueske with Senator Gorton. I also want to thank Bill Baird with legislative counsel for his patience and hard work, and Beth Fuchs of the Congressional Research Service for her invaluable guidance. Finally, I would like thank Michael Gutowski and Mark Nadel of the General Accounting Office for their analysis of the impact of S. 1028. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. The bill establishes standards regarding portability, renewability, and pre-existing conditions, but does not otherwise disturb the association plan world. States will still regulate and certify insured plans, and the Secretary of Labor will continue to regulate self-insured plans that are currently exempt from State regulation.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage of H.R. 3103.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. No. Health purchasing cooperatives are purely voluntary. Subtitle D is intended to create special benefits for cooperatives that meet the standards in the bill. Congress does not intend that these provisions in any way affect the legal status or rights of purchasing cooperatives, employer coalitions, multiemployer plans, MEWA's, association plans, or other similar arrangements that do not meet the standards of this subtitle. The statute clearly states this intent.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. No. The bill does not require groups to form or join a purchasing cooperative. Nor does the legislation preclude any other type of groups purchasing arrangements from existing.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. That is correct. Congress intends that association plans may continue to do business as they always have, except that they must meet the same insurance reform standards as other health plans under the bill.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes. This provision is meant to prohibit insurers or employers from excluding employees in a group from coverage or charging them higher premiums based on their health status and other related factors that could lead to higher health costs. This does not mean that an entire group cannot be charged more. But it does preclude health plans from singling out individuals in the group for higher premiums or dropping them from coverage altogether.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes. These words are meant to broadly preclude the use of any of the categories insurance companies have historically used to deny people coverage based on health status and related factors-- that reasonably could lead a health plan to believe that an individual would incur high health costs or be uninsurable. They are meant to preclude use of any of the categories insurance companies have historically used to deny people coverage based on their expected health costs--not only medical history or the presence of preexisting conditions, but also including such factors as family history, likelihood of experiencing domestic violence--or actual experience of domestic violence, genetic predispositions or other genetic information, or residence in a low-income neighborhood. I want to just mention a few measures that we will have to address in the conference. The Health Insurance Reform Act is a modest, responsible bipartisan solution to many of the most obvious abuses in the health insurance market today. In fact, the only active opposition to the legislation comes from those who profit from the abuses in the current system. In his State of the Union Address last January, President Clinton challenged the Congress to pass this bill. Now the Senate is poised to fulfill that pledge. Mr. President, the only thing that stands between this bill and the President's signature are controversial provisions added in the House of Representatives. These objectionable provisions include, again, the medical savings accounts which we have debated, the federalization of multiple employer welfare arrangements--Mr. President, I ask for 3 more minutes.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

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

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Jeffords, Senator Feingold, and others in submitting this resolution commending the people of Sierra Leone on their successful transition to democracy. At a time of much instability in west Africa--from Liberia, to the Gambia, to Nigeria--the changes in Sierra Leone represent a beacon of hope for the region. Many people questioned the wisdom of proceeding with a multi-party election in the midst of a civil war, but the people of Sierra Leone would not be denied their opportunity to vote. They stood in line for many hours, desperate to cast their ballot. Their will was strong: the military simply had to go. Through their determination, the election succeeded, and on March 29, 1996, the military handed over power to a democratically elected head of state. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues in congratulating the new President, Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, on his election. He brings to the job a distinguished background in international affairs, and I believe is well prepared to lead Sierra Leone from its troubled past to a prosperous and peaceful future. It is my hope that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will soon be able to welcome the new President to Washington. The head of the Interim National Election Commission, Mr. James Jonah, also deserves special congratulations. Under extremely difficult circumstances--from financial to logistical to political--Mr. Jonah guided his country toward democracy and civilian rule. His steady hand contributed greatly to the success of the process. I also want to pay special tribute to the United States Ambassador to Sierra Leone, John Hirsch. Despite limited resources, Ambassador Hirsch played a critically important role in pushing for democratic change. We often fail to recognize our skilled diplomats in small embassies like Freetown, but their dedicated efforts are extremely important and appreciated. Finally, I want to commend the former military ruler of the country, Julius Amaada Bio, for respecting the results of the elections. Until the last moment, many questioned whether the military would actually hand over power. Of course, many military rulers--including some in west Africa--have ignored elections. But Brigadier Bio demonstrated statesmanlike leadership in guiding his country to democracy, and I believe history will look upon him kindly. Mr. President, the path ahead for Sierra Leone will not be easy. While a tentative cease-fire holds, instability continues to plague the Sierra Leonian countryside. I hope the Revolutionary United Front [RUF] will negotiate in good faith with the new President of the country and that a lasting peace agreement can soon be reached. The time for fighting is over as Sierra Leone moves toward a new era. At the same time, reform of the military must be a top priority. There is little doubt that the people of Sierra Leone lack confidence in the integrity and professionalism of their own protectors. That must change. As the peace process moves forward, the South African mercenaries should also return to their homes. As I told Chairman Strasser, the former head of state, during his visit to Washington last October, the continued presence of mercenaries will only contribute to instability over the long-run. While elections are important, Sierra Leone must get back on its feet economically for democracy to take root. The civil war and instability have devastated the formal economy. But Sierra Leone is gifted with many natural resources and great beauty. I urge the new government to work closely with the international financial institutions to move the economy forward, and I urge our Government to closely examine what contribution we can make to Sierra Leone's recovery. Mr. President, as chair of the Africa subcommittee, many people ask whether I get frustrated watching events in Africa--and sometimes I do. But for every Rwanda or Liberia, there is a South Africa, a Mozambique, or even--as we recognize today--a Sierra Leone. Again, I congratulate the people of Sierra Leone on their historic election and am pleased to join my colleagues in cosponsoring this important resolution.