Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Local Rail Freight Assistance [LRFA] Program. This program is one of America's key programs for investment in rail infrastructure. This legislation reauthorizes the program for 3 years at its current authorized level. LRFA provides much needed assistance to America's rural communities to assure that they maintain much needed rail service and that they remain linked into America's rail network. One only needs to look at the floods of last summer to see how important the LRFA Program is. When the Congress enacted disaster relief legislation last year, it was through the LRFA Program that the Nation helped get America's short lines and regional rails back on track. Without this help, shippers, railroads, workers, and communities would have been financially devastated. In this era of deficit reduction, no program should escape intense security, the LRFA included. This program stands up very well. It provides jobs, investment, and productivity improvement. It is absolutely critical to rail service in rural America and helps stitch small town America into the Nation's transportation fabric. As chairman of the Senate Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I want to look at ways to improve this program, to get more infrastructure for every dollar of Federal investment and to also look at direct and guaranteed loan options. Mr. President, over the years the Congress has consistently supported this much needed program. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this important reauthorization legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Kerrey of Nebraska, Chafee, and Durenberger, which is designed to revamp our current Federal job training system. From the viewpoint of both the taxpayer and the trainee, there can be little doubt that a comprehensive overhaul is long overdue. What began as a few limited programs in the late sixties has exploded today into a confusing maze of 154 separate programs, costing almost $25 billion a year. Those programs are hamstrung by duplication, waste, and conflicting regulations that too often leave program trainees no better off than when they started. It is a system with more than 60 separate programs targeted at the economically disadvantaged, with, for example, 34 literacy programs aimed at reaching the same group. It is a system with six different standards for defining income eligibility levels, five for defining family or household income, and five for defining what is included in income. It is a system which lacks any effective means for determining whether or not programs actually work. A report recently released by the General Accounting Office indicated that fewer than half of the 62 job training programs selected for study even bothered to check to see if participants obtained jobs after training. I think this is one of the real problems, Mr. President -- being able to analyze what sort of effect these training programs have had and how we can be more useful by following through with the data to understand what is occurring. During the past decade, only seven of those programs were evaluated to find out whether trainees would have achieved the same outcomes without Federal assistance. It is little wonder that the news media has already supplied examples of failure and lack of cost effectiveness in these programs. Although anecdotal in nature, the following examples offer some graphic illustrations of the broader problems in Federal jobs training efforts: In suburban Seattle, a woman told a reporter she was enrolled in her eighth Federal job training program. She said the previous seven programs offered no more help than a phone book and a few job leads. She hoped this program would finally give her the skills she needed to pull herself out of poverty, off Government assistance, and into a good job. In Los Angeles, one private sector job training initiative has managed to put together a fairly successful effort, but is able to do so only by patching together a mind-boggling array of funding sources. These sources include a special farm worker grant, several different programs for the disadvantaged within JTPA, the Jobs Program for Welfare Recipients, the Youth Fair Chance Program, Pell grants, and student loans, not to mention various local and State employment programs. A recent New York Times article told the story of a private placement firm that charged States $5,500 for each welfare recipient placed in a job. While the program had some successes, the company has paid nearly $1 million, 60 percent of that in Federal matching funds, for people who never found permanent work. Mr. President, I think the message is loud and clear: The time for half-measures for reforming the Federal job training system has passed. The current system is an obvious waste of scarce Federal resources and, more importantly, is really not providing the type of assistance and support that is needed. I believe there is general acknowledgment that we must act now to reform the system. The administration has spoken to this need, as have many of my colleagues, and I look forward to working with them in this endeavor. In fact, the administration is proposing legislation which attempts to bring together some half-dozen programs serving dislocated workers. The legislation that is being introduced today, the Job Training Consolidation Act, takes a different approach. Specifically, this legislation differs from the administration's in three important respects: First, its focus is not limited to just the dislocated worker programs, but rather encompasses all Federal job training efforts. Second, it does not call for additional new funding and does not create new categories for entitlement spending. Third, it offers, immediately, the opportunity for States and localities to combine resources to tailor programs to meet current needs in a way that the States themselves believe is necessary to meet the particular concerns of a community or the State as a whole. The Job Training Consolidation Act would provide both the mechanism and the strategy for overhauling the entire system. The goal is a single coherent approach to employment training to assist all jobs seekers in entering the work force, gaining basic skills, or retraining for new jobs. To achieve this goal, the legislation takes two important steps. First, it establishes a public-private partnership at the Federal level to move toward consolidating all existing programs following a 2- year transition period. Second, broad waivers would be granted immediately to the States to allow maximum flexibility for coordination of the largest programs to meet local needs, such as immediate help for the jobless. This legislation would transfer responsibility for job training to the States and, in turn, to local communities to implement programs geared to those needs. In addition, the bill requires the involvement of employers at all stages of the process. Ultimately, an integrated system would be created that would assure job seekers information about all available employment and training services no matter where they first applied for help. I believe we must take bold steps to reform our existing training programs, not merely add new ones in the name of reform. The bill would consolidate almost 60 programs contained in a dozen statutes without additional spending, new entitlements, tax increases, or additional layers of bureaucracy. In fact, the consolidation effort would probably result in cost savings that could be used to serve more clients more effectively. I think it will enhance the ability of all those seeking jobs to obtain better assistance in obtaining the skills they need to get a job, a good job, a job that will provide stability to an individual or a family. I look forward to working with my colleagues in achieving this goal. I am particularly pleased to see on the floor a cosponsor in this effort who has spoken eloquently in the past on the need to provide truly inventive, creative initiatives that address the problems of Government and, more importantly, of people as they related to Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record. Mr. President, let me, first of all, commend the distinguished Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum]. There are two things I call to the attention of my colleagues about this legislation that I believe are extremely important. Indeed, it is constantly mentioned by the American people that they want action in both of these areas. The first is they look to Washington, DC, and they see a lot of waste. They see a lot of duplication of effort. I suspect most of our colleagues this week were visited by mayors who came to town talking about unfunded mandates and the difficulty of getting Federal programs to work. This piece of legislation deals with that head on. There are 154 job training programs, as the distinguished Senator from Kansas has just said, that are administered by 14 different Federal agencies. Not only is the total cost of this effort, approximately $25 billion, but having these efforts in all these different agencies, 14 different agencies, makes it difficult for States and localities to do the very important work of job training, which is the second thing about this legislation that I call to the attention of my colleagues. This week the President invited the G-7 leaders to come to Detroit to talk about what do we do as industrial countries to increase the number of high-paying jobs in America and the rest of the industrial world. It is a tremendous challenge. It is not an easy challenge for us to meet. But the simplest way, in my judgment, to discover what it is we need to do is, to find those high-paying jobs and ask yourself what do these individuals have that are different from people who are earning less money. Mr. President, every single time that you find yourself in that situation, the answer to that question is they have higher skills because they had training that enabled them to do exactly what that job requires. That is a difficulty that we have today, Mr. President, with the current division of responsibility between 14 different agencies, and the lack of flexibility that States have and that localities have in being able to tailor the effort for the particular requirement of the job. We have had example after example. I have talked to Nebraska people who are involved with job training, the Nebraska members of the Chamber of Commerce, the people who are involved in job service, people who are involved in the Job Training Partnership Act. Over and over what they say is they will find themselves in a situation that they know what they need to do, they know exactly what it is that needs to be done, but the Federal regulations do not allow them to do it. They find themselves increasingly frustrated with the task at hand. Mr. President, all of us who have been involved in politics have occasionally had to answer the question, well, why do you do it? What is there in this effort of giving speeches on the floor and raising money for reelection campaigns and all the travel and separation from family that occurs as a consequence of this work? Why would anybody want to get involved with politics? I see in the gallery some young people who are here visiting Washington who may themselves be asking that very question. Mr. President, in my 9 years of being involved as a political representative, first as Governor and now as Senator, the most satisfying moment occurs when I know that as a consequence of Government's effort some individuals have increased their skills and can improve their capacity to do something. As a result of that effort, they now find themselves not just with a job, but a job that provides them with some sense of dignity, some sense of purpose. Mr. President, I got out of high school in 1961 in Lincoln, NE. In 1961 you could graduate from high school and you could get a job in Lincoln working for Goodyear, working for Burlington Northern, working for Cushman, working for Western Electric, working at AT&T at a manufacturing job. There were lots of jobs out there, Mr. President. And in 1961 the rule was you could go get a job, get married, support a family on that wage, you did a couple of years in the service, and when you got back from the service your work was waiting for you there, and you expected to be there for 40 or 45 years. All that was really required in 1961 was a willingness to work hard. A strong back was about all that it took in 1961. Well, today that is not the case. There are not very many high- paying, low-skill jobs left in America. And so this job training effort is extremely important and may be one of the most important things that we are doing with taxpayer dollars. It may be one of the most important, one of the most satisfying things we can do with our taxes is to help individuals increase their skills so they are able to get the high-paying job. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. I think it is extremely important both from the standpoint of reducing waste, making this Government operate better, showing the taxpayers we are vigilant to make certain their money is being well spent. I also believe it is extremely important because job training is the answer to the question of how do we create high-paying jobs in America. The answer is that we have to have site-specific training. We have to have training related to that business when they bring that new manufacturing equipment on line. They have to have the training effort there so the individuals can increase their skills to be able to handle new, modern, more complicated machinery. So I hope that this piece of legislation is seen by the administration as a constructive effort to do precisely what the Vice President and the President have been talking about; streamlining the Government, making its performance review -- in fact, increase the performance of our Government. But equally important, I hope the administration sees this legislation as a way to make job training work and work for the purpose of increasing the skills of Americans and increasing the numbers of high-paying jobs in this country. Mr. President, I am proud to join today with the distinguished ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum, my friend and colleague from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, and Senator Chafee, in introducing the Job Training Consolidation Act of 1994. The Job Training Consolidation Act is a bold, necessary, thoughtful, and very serious attempt to reinvent the labyrinth of Federal programs that masquerades today as our Nation's reemployment and job training system. Senator Kassebaum has already described this initiative in some detail. I would just like to expand on some of the points she has made, and discuss my own reasons for supporting this legislation. In particular, I want to highlight the reasons I have decided to join with Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kerrey to support this initiative -- instead of the administration's Reemployment Act -- as the starting point for reshaping the hodgepodge of current training and income assistance programs into a coherent national system for reemployment. Let me begin by commending the Clinton administration -- and especially Labor Secretary Robert Reich -- for recognizing that our Nation's job training programs need fixing, and for putting this issue high on our national agenda. According to the General Accounting Office, there are currently over 150 Federal job training programs administered by 14 different Federal departments and independent agencies costing nearly $25 billion. These programs do not function as a comprehensive, cohesive system, but often operate in isolation. This fragmented system is duplicative, ineffective, costly, and confusing to jobseekers and training providers alike. Conflicting eligibility and income requirements add to the barriers States face in providing assistance. The administration's Reemployment Act, which will be introduced sometime this week, is a significant first step down the long road to reform. Mr. President, I have a great deal of respect for what Secretary Reich has done to bring this issue to our attention. I have made sure that President Clinton and Secretary Reich know of my interest in reforming our Nation's job training and income support programs. I hope to build on my own strong record of collaboration with the administration on education and job training issues -- such as student loan reform, Goals 2000, the school-to-work and national service bills, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act -- to help move fundamental job training reform legislation through Congress this year. I know there are many people of good will on both sides of the aisle in this body -- including Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kerrey -- who share my goals. I can only say that I hope all parties will come to the table with sincerity, honesty, creativity, and the willingness to look beyond the margins of their own legislation to get something done. We owe that to the millions of American people for whom job training and income support are a lifeline. In starting this debate, the administration has given us an opportunity to reform the crazy quilt of Federal job training programs by developing an integrated national reemployment strategy. It is an opportunity we cannot afford to pass up. I support much of what is in the administration's Reemployment Act. The Reemployment Act would consolidate six existing job training programs under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction, and set up one- stop career centers where workers would receive job assistance services, training, and information about other job opportunities at a single entry point. The bill would institute early identification programs for people at risk of becoming long-term unemployed, and provide better quality labor market information to jobseekers. Perhaps most importantly, it recognizes that the unemployment compensation system must be modernized to deal more effectively with structural dislocation as well as temporary layoffs caused by cyclical economic downturns. The administration's Reemployment Act is a good start. But, as the Job Training Consolidation Act we are introducing today recognizes, it is only a start. I believe we must go farther if we are to truly serve the needs of American workers and businesses. The Job Training Consolidation Act will allow us to wipe the slate clean and develop a single, coherent U.S. job training and employment strategy which shifts primary responsibility for reemployment services to the States and local communities. That's where it belongs. This approach is twofold. First, the legislation would establish a national commission to formulate a cohesive reemployment strategy and report its recommendations to Congress within 2 years. Second, the legislation will grant broad waivers to the States from the 12 largest Federal job training programs, to allow coordination to begin immediately at the State and local levels. I want to make two things clear. First, I have decided to support the Job Training Consolidation Act as the starting point for reform. I believe that any reform legislation we ultimately pass will look very different from both the administration's Reemployment Act and this legislation. Second, I am supporting the Job Training Consolidation Act not because the administration's bill goes too far, but because it does not go far enough. The administration's Reemployment Act addresses problems with only 6 of the current 154 training programs -- representing less than one-third of the Federal dollars spent on job training. Reforming Federal job training programs in a piecemeal fashion will only add to the existing problems of client access, differing eligibility and reporting requirements, and fragmented lines of authority for operating programs. Unless we make a serious effort to integrate various reform initiatives, we will lose an important opportunity to consolidate and improve the programs in ways that benefit both taxpayers and the customers of job training services. Mr. President, let me briefly discuss the three main principles that will guide my approach to job training and income support reform this year. First, I believe we need to convert the current patchwork of Federal job training programs into a cohesive, coherent, comprehensive, customer-friendly reemployment system. Second, any reform initiative ought to put responsibility and accountability where they belong -- at the State and local level. There has been a great deal of evidence in recent years that our current Federal job training programs are ineffective and unable to adequately meet the needs of their clients. Instead of simply building on the current Federal job training system, we need to make States and local communities full partners in developing and implementing reemployment services tailored to the needs of their local labor markets. In an attempt to improve local service delivery of Federal employment training services, several States and communities, including those in Minnesota, have taken the initiative in recent years to reorganize their service delivery system to better coordinate services at the local level. But their efforts have been hampered by differences in Federal program requirements, such as differences in eligibility criteria and planning and budgeting cycles. Therefore, we should recognize that perhaps the most valuable contribution the Federal Government can make to job training reform is to get out of the way of State and local reform efforts. Third, I believe strongly that any new reemployment system must be coordinated with current welfare reform and student aid reform efforts. Since Federal welfare programs, student aid, and job training programs often serve the same disadvantaged adult population, I believe that reform efforts in all three of these areas should be coordinated as they are developed so as to minimize problems for clients, States, and localities. As we coordinate these reform efforts, our emphasis should be on prevention. We must do more to help people stay off public assistance in the first place. And for those who do need assistance, we should make sure that programs are designed to get them into the work force -- or back into the work force -- as quickly as possible. Mr. President, the Job Training Consolidation Act is not perfect. It lacks, for example, the important income support reform proposals contained in the administration's bill. However, at this stage, it is more consistent with my broader approach to reemployment reform, as highlighted by the principles I have just outlined. Finally, Mr. President, let me say that I do realize that many programs I have supported in the past may be significantly redesigned, or even repealed, under the Job Training Consolidation Act. In this regard, it is important to point out that there are safeguards in the bill to ensure that populations served under existing programs will continue to be served under any new program. For example, States will not be able to obtain waivers from existing programs under the bill unless they demonstrate that populations served under those programs are being served. It is also important to point out that the bill does not reduce overall funding for U.S. job training programs. It merely folds these programs into a comprehensive program. By reducing costs due to program inefficiencies, paperwork, bureaucracy, and overlap, I believe we will make more money available directly to people who need training. I believe that everyone will be served better by this reform effort. It's clear that the current programs are not up to par. To take just one example: According to the GAO, the Nation's $2 billion-a-year vocational rehabilitation program serves only a small proportion of potential beneficiaries, and the gains achieved by disabled participants fade substantially after 2 years. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, let me assure you that I would never support this initiative if I believed it would have the effect of reducing current support to individuals with disabilities and others who are disadvantaged. I believe the Vocational Rehabilitation Act and other programs would better serve targeted populations if more flexibility were given to States and local communities. That's the guiding spirit behind the legislation we are introducing today. As I mentioned earlier, I hope to build on my past record of cooperation with the administration to bridge the differences between the Reemployment Act and the broader approach that Senator Kerrey, Senator Kassebaum and I have endorsed in the Job Training Consolidation Act. Mr. President, today our distinguished colleague, the Senator from Kansas, [Mr. Kassebaum], introduced the Job Training Consolidation Act of 1994. As a ranking Republican on the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum has crafted what, in my judgment, is a very thoughtful bill. What it does is consolidates the confusing array of Federal job training programs, some 154 separate programs in total. Importantly, the legislation provides immediate flexibility to States and localities to use Federal job training funds totaling some $25 billion a year. This is astonishing the amount of money we are putting into these job training programs, $25 billion a year. What this bill does is it provides, as I say, the immediate flexibility to States and localities to use these job training funds on programs and priorities of the design of the States and localities. It also provides for the creation of a national commission with a strong input from the private sector -- I want to stress that a strong input from the private sector -- to develop a single coordinated system of employment and training. The legislation would consolidate about 60 programs, scattered across a dozen statutes, without requiring any additional spending, any additional new taxes, or any additional new bureaucracy. While much of the country has begun to enjoy the fruits of a growing economy, my own State of Rhode Island continues to suffer the effects of a nagging recession. In January, 10.5 percent of Rhode Island's labor force, seasonally adjusted, was out of work. By contrast, the State experienced a 3-percent unemployment rate for all of 1988. While the most recent jump in Rhode Island's unemployment is partly the result of new Federal methods for counting joblessness, much of our problem is due to longer term economic dislocation in defense and other manufacturing sectors. Many of the jobs Rhode Islanders have lost during this downturn are not coming back. Now, more than ever, we need a coherent, cost effective system for retraining dislocated workers. This bill takes an important step in that direction. A recent report by the General Accounting Office [GAO] found that American taxpayers do not get fair value for the $25 billion we expend annually on job training. The GAO report audited 62 training programs and discovered that less than half ever bothered to find out whether or not participants found jobs. We have very little data on the effectiveness of Federal job training programs, and even less accountability. In a period of scarce budgetary resources and growing demands for Federal assistance, this situation is intolerable. Let me turn to the administration's efforts in this area for a moment. I comment the Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, for the comprehensive legislation he has developed to address the problem of structural unemployment. The administration's Reemployment Act is a very thoughtful proposal that correctly seeks to transform our present Federal-State unemployment insurance program into a reemployment system. However, upon review, I have a number of concerns about the proposal, including the financing, the broad reliance on untested retraining program, and the scope of the consolidation effort. I also have some reservations about the bill's impact on the existing unemployment insurance system. State officials in Rhode Island have also reviewed the proposal, and share many of these concerns, particularly with respect to the fiscal implications, and the effects on the present employment and training system in our State. Despite these concerns, I stand ready as a member of the Finance Committee to work on a bipartisan basis with the administration, and with my Senate colleagues to enact legislation this year to address the problem of long term structural unemployment. It is absolutely imperative that we develop a comprehensive national strategy as soon as possible to give dislocated workers the training, employment assistance, and other resources they need to secure their futures. Many citizens in my State of Rhode Island have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits, and do not have access to the training and employment services they need to find the high quality jobs they deserve. Clearly, our present unemployment insurance system falls short of addressing the problems of dislocated workers. Both the administration and Kassebaum bills offer us much hope for meaningful action to address this serious problem this year, and I intend to work in earnest toward that end. Mr. President, I rise to introduce two bills: the Health Care Anti-Fraud Act of 1994 and the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Act of 1994. These bills would expand current fraud and abuse laws to cover fraud against private payers, and increase existing civil and criminal fraud and abuse penalties. Mr. President, this promises to be a historic Congress, from which we hope a legacy of important health reform legislation will emerge. As we all know, the skyrocketing costs of health care has much to do with why we are working so hard to fashion meaningful reform. One of the reasons that our health care costs are as high as they are is because our system is being ripped-off daily by those who see health care as a giant game: A game in which there are few rules and the winner is the one who manages to dupe the Government, private insurance companies, and individual Americans into paying the most money. The General Accounting Office estimates that up to 10 percent of our health care dollars -- up to $100 billion annually -- are lost to fraud and abuse. Even if this number is exaggerated by 50 percent -- even if the amount of fraud and abuse only totals $50 billion -- this is a staggering amount. In a day and age when we are struggling to contain health care costs and stretch our resources to cover millions of Americans who now go without insurance, we must increase our efforts to root out the fraud and abuse that infects our health care system. Mr. President, Federal law enforcement officials have already begun mounting a vigorous battle against health care fraud. In 1993, the Federal Government collected more than $177 million in health care fraud penalties and fines. $100 million of that total came from one company alone that was systematically looting the Medicare and Medicaid programs on a national scale. But despite efforts to date, there is still much more for us to do if we are going to deter health care fraud. We know for a fact that there are still thousands of dishonest providers in the United States who continue to pilfer our national health care pocketbook, playing games with charges, billing codes, and unnecessary tests and procedures. Only last week, a report released by the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau uncovered troubling examples of transportation vendors overcharging Medicaid, and charging for services that were never even rendered. As Congress contemplates health care reform, we must also reform our fraud and abuse laws to better target those who see the rules and regulations governing the delivery of health care in this country as little more than negotiable obstacles. Toward this end, I am introducing today two simple, effective, and straightforward bills which together will help combat health care fraud. First and foremost, this legislation would take our existing fraud and abuse laws, which at present protect only the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and extend their reach to encompass private insurance arrangements as well. The Federal Government currently accounts for approximately 30 percent of U.S. health care spending, and the core elements of our existing health care fraud laws only protect against conduct that defrauds the Government. but what about the other 70 percent of our health care spending? It is time that we send the message that the Federal Government will not tolerate fraud and abuse in any health care transaction, even if the target of the fraud is a private payer. No matter who appears to be the victim of fraud and abuse, all Americans end up paying the price when costs and premiums skyrocket as a result. Second, and equally important, this legislation will substantially increase the criminal and civil penalties for fraudulent conduct so that unscrupulous health care providers have greater reason to think twice before attempting to cheat the system. Existing civil monetary penalties will be more than doubled under this legislation. And criminal penalties will be expanded to include treble damages and to provide for stiff prison sentences when fraud results in physical harm to a patient. As a result of these modifications, our health care fraud laws will pack a more powerful deterrent punch. This bill would also make it easier for courts to impose community service obligations on those who have violated the health care fraud laws. Those who defraud society's efforts to deliver one of its most important public goods should be made to serve society and contribute to that good when they are caught. At the same time, this legislation would give health care providers an incentive to come clean and voluntarily disclose violations of the law to Federal authorities. In exchange for such disclosure, providers would be subject to substantially reduced penalties. Our experience in other areas strongly suggests that a voluntary disclosure program of this type will encourage providers to police themselves more rigorously, foster a culture of compliance and respect for the law, and ultimately increase the Federal Government's monetary recoveries. Expanding and strengthening the fraud laws will not, however, mean much if the Federal Government does not have the resources necessary to police the health care industry properly. The fact is that laws unenforced are laws ignored. To promote a respect for the law, therefore, we must commit to putting more health care fraud investigators on the street. This bill would authorize $100 million in funding over 4 years to allow the Federal Government to expand its anti-fraud efforts. There can be no question that this is money well spent. Each dollar spent on health care fraud investigations has yielded more than 4 dollars in real, money-in-the-bank recoveries to the Government. With health care reform around the corner, this is not the time to be penny-wise and pound-foolish. As we all know, Mr. President, there are many tough questions that need to be asked and answered during the health care reform process. The issue of health care fraud, by contrast, is a relatively straightforward one. The legislation introduced today offers an uncontroversial, but meaningful opportunity to turn up the heat in our battle against fraud and abuse -- no matter which broader health reform options the Congress ultimately chooses to enact. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this problem in the months to come. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of these bills be printed in the Record. Mr. President, today I am introducing, at the request of the administration, the Maritime Administration Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995. Title I of this bill contains the authorization of appropriations for the Maritime Administration [MarAd]. MarAd operates the U.S. Government-supported maritime promotion programs, such as the operating differential subsidy program, the title XI loan guarantee program for shipbuilding, and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. The second title of this bill, the Maritime Security and Trade Act of 1994, is intended to lead to a much needed revitalization of the U.S. maritime industry. The administration's proposed plan, the Maritime Security Program, would provide assistance to support 52 ships for 10 years. Beginning in fiscal year 1995, it would provide U.S.-flag vessels operating in the foreign trade with assistance as a means of making the vessels competitive in the world market. Maritime reform is vital to the continued existence of the U.S. merchant marine, which is so critical to our national interest. Over the last two decades, the U.S. maritime industry has been in a continuous state of decline. In fact, the largest American shipping companies, American President's Lines and SeaLand, applied last year to the Department of Transportation to reflag a substantial portion of their fleets in foreign countries. The companies have indicated that they will be obligated to lower their U.S. flags and replace them with the flags of convenience, and replace their U.S. citizen crews with foreign crews. I believe that this reflagging would be devastating not only to our economic security but also to our national defense. It is unthinkable to me that supplies to our troops may be carried on ships from so- called outlaw nations in times of international conflict. Additionally, we cannot be in the position of relying on foreign ships to carry all of our imports and exports and thus be beholden to the trading practices of the countries in which these ships are flagged. How ironic it would be if the manufacturers and consumers of the only superpower in the world were to become embroiled in a trade war with a country that controls all of its shipping! Without a U.S.-flag commercial fleet, our manufacturers, importers, and exporters would be at the mercy of the trade practices of these nations. I appreciate the dedication that Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena and Adm. Albert Herberger, the Administrator of MarAd, have shown in trying to address the very serious decline in our maritime industry. They have put forward a bill for us to consider carefully, and the Commerce Committee will proceed to do so. We must find a way to stimulate and revitalize the U.S. maritime industry. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill to provide for the return of lands that were held in trust for native Americans prior to their acquisition by the United States in the Government's exercise of its power of condemnation through eminent domain. Mr. President, this bill would provide that within 90 days of the date on which property is declared to be surplus by the United States, an organization that previously held the land in trust for native Americans would have the right to exercise the right of first refusal to repurchase the property from the Government at fair market value. I believe that the result effected by this measure will afford a greater degree of equity to native Americans for whom land was held in trust, while compensating the Government in full for the reacquisition of such lands. Mr. President, Senator Warner and I are today introducing a bill which we believe would go a long way toward improving the counterintelligence and security posture of U.S. intelligence agencies. Joining us as cosponsors of this bill are Senators Graham, Kerrey, Bryan, Johnston, D'Amato, Chafee, Gorton, Baucus, Boren, and Murkowski, all of whom are members or former members of the Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. President, I particularly thank Senator Boren and Senator Cohen for their tireless work that they put forth in 1989 and 1990 as chairman and ranking member of the committee. Senator Cohen has introduced that legislation and then modified it. We are going to work from that excellent work that was put together by the committee at that time, and our legislation indicates what additions we have made to that. We will continue to work with any Senator who is interested in seeing our national security secrets are protected and there is the best effort put forward to prevent the types of incidents that just recently occurred relating to the allegations concerning Mr. Ames and his wife. We have all been shocked and saddened in recent weeks by the arrest of CIA employee, Alrich H. Ames, and his wife, Maria del Rosario Casas Ames, on charges of spying, first for the Soviet Union and then for the Russian Republic. Allegedly, this began in 1985 and lasted until the time the couple was arrested several weeks ago. We are incredulous that such activities could have gone on so long without detection by an agency which we thought had very stringent security procedures. In the weeks since the arrest, the Select Committee on Intelligence has been exploring what went wrong and how best to fix it. While we are a long way from completing our inquiry, several points are clear: First, CIA and other intelligence agencies actually require little in the way of information from their employees which might tip them off to espionage activities. There are background investigations which are periodically updated, and, at CIA and NSA, there are polygraphs required for employees. Once you are in, however, there is relatively little scrutiny given employees and little effort made to enforce the rules. Second, it is apparent that security elements at the intelligence agencies as well as the FBI itself lack the legal authority needed to obtain records from private institutions relating to the employees of intelligence agencies. Moreover, some of the authorities the FBI does have -- for example, to see tax returns -- often are not available until very late in the investigative process. Third, it is clear that there has been a problem between the CIA and the FBI in terms of their cooperation on counterintelligence investigations. While there may be an understandable desire on the part of the CIA to protect the identities of its intelligence sources, it cannot be allowed to be an obstacle where investigations of counterintelligence problems are concerned. There must be complete cooperation and coordination between these agencies. Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today addresses each of these problem areas: It would require all employees of intelligence agencies, as a condition of their employment, to consent to access by the Government to their tax returns, financial records, and travel records. It would further require that all such employees who are in critical intelligence positions, as defined by the bill, must make detailed financial disclosures and continuously update them for so long as they hold such positions, and for 10 years thereafter, or until they leave Government service. It would provide additional legal authority needed by the intelligence agencies and by the FBI to obtain access to records needed for counterintelligence investigations. It would establish clear requirements to improve the relationship between the FBI and the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Mr. President, I do not stand here and say that we can pass a law that will stop espionage. There is no panacea for spying. Someone who decides to betray his country will, regrettably, find a way to do so regardless of the laws we have on the books. But it does seem to me that there are things we can do that would make it more difficult for such people to escape detection -- that would make it easier for them to trip themselves up. There are also things we can do to improve the ability of our counterintelligence and security agencies to identify the culprits, and things we can do to facilitate their prosecution. That is what our bill attempts to do. It builds upon legislation that was introduced by Senators Boren and Cohen in 1990, and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution that both of these distinguished Senators made, not only to this legislation, but to intelligence generally, when they served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the Select Committee on Intelligence. Senator Warner and I thought it desirable to develop a new bill to address more directly the problems apparent in the Ames case and to reflect developments since 1990 when the original legislation was introduced. None of this is etched in stone. Indeed, the committee will be holding public hearings on this bill, as well as the bill introduced by Senators Boren and Cohen, and the bills recently introduced by Senators Metzenbaum and Heflin, to deal with the counterintelligence problem. Our objective is to find the best solution, striking the appropriate balance between our security needs and the privacy of the Government employees who are affected. I think the bill that Senator Warner and I introduce today is a good place to start. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I join the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee, on which I am privileged to serve as cochairman, in introducing this legislation today. I also join him in extending our respects to our colleague from Maine and our colleague from Oklahoma, who did a lot of very important work several years ago and, once again, have brought this matter to the attention of the Senate. I have drawn up in my statement a careful comparison between the bill we put in today and the bill that was originally fashioned by Senators Boren and Cohen. The encountered, at that time, when they put this bill before the Senate Intelligence Committee, considerable opposition because of the necessity, in this type of legislation, to ask of the employees -- not just the CIA, but throughout the several departments and agencies of our Government dealing with intelligence matters -- to give up a certain measure of personal privacy as a condition of their employment. That is a very serious point. We have put that provision in this bill, and it is one which this body must address at a time, I hope an early time, when this bill will be addressed in full and be passed by this body. We have also incorporated a provision that was essential, in the judgment of the Director of the CIA, Director Woolsey. And that is, we have a law in here by which the appropriate authorities of the U.S. Government can go into the bank records, travel records, brokerage records of individual employees and determine the presence or absence of evidence which could, in fact, implicate them in violation of laws relating to the security of our Nation. In concluding, throughout the history of this country, our Nation has been fortunate to have a very large number of individual citizens who dedicated their entire careers to intelligence. Indeed, some of them have suffered loss of limb, and indeed loss of life. There are no less than 50 names on a wall at the Central Intelligence Agency permanently recognizing the ultimate sacrifice of those individuals. They should not be tainted by the Ames case, nor should they in any way be impugned by the serious and constructive deliberation that is now underway by both the legislative and executive branches as we proceed to revise and add to that body of law that would preclude an individual from becoming a turncoat and divulging classified material. As I look back in history, in the 1940's and the 1950's and the 1960's, indeed, almost into the 1970's, those few individuals who did become turncoats were motivated in large part by ideology. But not so today. This is the dirty dollar. It is greed; it is money; and that is the reason we must ask for the appropriate legislation to have surveillance over the financial records of these several employees. In thank the Senator, and I appreciate the indulgence of our colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senators DeConcini and Warner as an original cosponsor of the Counterintelligence and Security Enhancements Act of 1994. The chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have ably outlined the bill's provisions. Many of these provisions are based upon the fine work of the Jacobs panel, led by Eli Jacobs. I support all of them. We need this legislation -- particularly the ability to do thorough financial background checks -- if we are going to guard successfully against a future Rick Ames. But, Mr. President, it will take more than legislation to fix what is wrong at the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA is seriously broken. I believe we all know that. When the last investigator has written the last word on the Ames' case, we are going to find that this massive security breakdown was due in large measure to the CIA's organizational culture -- what some have described as an old boys' network. As Mr. Jim Hoagland so accurately wrote on March 8 in the Washington Post, Ames was OOU -- One of Us. Son of an agency employee, hired before he finished college, he never received the scrutiny he so obviously warranted. Let me quote Mr. Hoagland because he hits it right on the head. In other words, Mr. President, OOU's are not supposed to sell out their country for money. But that's exactly what Ames did. And so did virtually every other turned American spy caught during the 1980's. This legislation, with its emphasis on personal finances, is a step in the right direction. Legislation, however, is no substitute for leadership. Whether we successfully come to grips with the one-of-us syndrome will depend largely upon CIA Director Jim Woolsey's leadership. Serious mistakes were made in the Ames case. Those responsible for the extraordinary level of complacency that surrounded this case must be held accountable. It is Mr. Woolsey's responsibility as director to make that call. But if he avoids the hard decisions, if he goes for the quick fix and papers over the Agency's deep-rooted cultural problems, he will face a growing credibility problem with an American public already highly skeptical of the billions of dollars we spend on the spy business. If, on the other hand, Mr. Woolsey takes serious corrective action, if he aggressively builds on that action to define a new role for the CIA in the post-cold-war world, he will be taking the first steps toward rebuilding the Agency's tarnished reputation. The choice is his. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the DeConcini- Warner counterintelligence bill. The DeConcini legislation reflects many of the ideas and recommendations that are included in S. 1869, a bill Senator Cohen and I recently reintroduced on improving our country's ability to counter foreign espionage activities. Senator Cohen and I became first involved with this issue in 1990 when I was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Senator Cohen was vice chairman. The committee commissioned an independent panel of experts led by Eli Jacobs, a noted business leader who had served on a number of national security advisory boards. The panel included members who are now high ranking officials in the Clinton administration like Secretary of State Warren Christopher, White House counsel Lloyd Cutler, and CIA Director Jim Woolsey. Others participating in the Jacobs group were Adm. Bobby Inman, former Director of the National Security Agency; former Reagan White House counsel A.B. Culvahouse; Sol Linowitz, former ambassador to the Organization of American States; former CIA Director Richard Helms; and Columbia law professor, Harold Edgar. Their exhaustive review of espionage laws and our country's security system led to the legislative proposals first outlined by Senator Cohen and I in 1990. Now, with the Ames case coming to light, the need for reform is even greater. Our country must realize, as the Jacobs panel and our intelligence committee determined several years ago, that most modern spies sell secrets for financial rather than philosophical motives and for that reason are not likely to be discouraged by the political changes that have swept through the Eastern bloc. I am pleased that the current chairmen and vice chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have decided to continue the efforts for reform. I note the many similarities between the DeConcini- Warner and Boren-Cohen bills and I look forward to working with them on reconciling the two initiatives. In particular, we must carefully decide which employees hold sensitive enough positions to be subjected to close monitoring of their financial dealings. It is obvious, we do not have the resources to scrutinize carefully all employees. To monitor too many employees could mean that we do not carefully monitor those we should. I hope to discuss this and other issues with my distinguished colleagues as the process continues. Mr. President, I introduce the Mercury- Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Faircloth, Lieberman, and Reid in cosponsoring this bill. This legislation will achieve three goals. It will reduce the amount of mercury used in disposable batteries; it will protect public health; and it will stimulate the recycling or proper disposal of rechargeable dry cell batteries containing cadmium and lead. As a result, there will be a significant reduction in the amounts of toxic heavy metals entering our air, water, and soil. Lead, mercury, and cadmium can threaten human health. Unlike many organic toxic substances, these toxic metals do not break-down into less harmful constituents. Instead, lead, mercury, and cadmium persist in the environment, where they can be absorbed into human, plant, and animal tissues. EPA has identified mercury, cadmium, and lead as 3 of the 17 high priority toxic chemicals on which EPA is focusing pollution reduction efforts because of their toxicity. Lead, which is used in the electrodes of sealed lead rechargeable batteries, has been classified as a probable human carcinogen by EPA. It has been shown to retard physical and mental development in children, leading one expert to call childhood lead poisoning "the most serious pediatric problem in the United States." But children are not the only ones at risk. Elevated lead exposures also have been linked to high blood pressure and central nervous system and kidney disorders in adults. And EPA says that lead is "highly toxic" to aquatic life. Cadmium, which is used in the electrodes of rechargeable nickel- cadmium batteries, can cause kidney and liver damage. And EPA has said that exposure to high levels of airborne cadmium can result in pulmonary edema and even death, while chronic low-level exposure can result in fibrosis of the lung and lung cancer. In 1976, EPA banned mercury in pesticide applications, after finding that mercury exposure can cause significant damage to the nervous system and kidneys. Mercury also has been linked to decreased motor functions and muscle reflexes, memory loss, headaches, and brain function disorders. And when mercury enters the aquatic environment, it can form methyl mercury which is extremely toxic to both humans and wildlife. Mercury, cadmium, and lead are contained in some battery casings and pose no risk while in use. But they can be a significant concern when discarded in our solid waste stream. In 1992 Americans used approximately 4 billion dry cell batteries each year. While dry cell batteries account for less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the 180 million tons of garbage we generate each year, dry cell batteries have been significant sources of mercury, cadmium and lead in our solid waste stream. According to the "Report on Dry Cell Batteries in New York State," mercury batteries accounted for 85 percent of the mercury, and rechargeable batteries accounted for 68 percent of the cadmium in New York's solid waste. Dry cell batteries in landfills can break down over time to release their toxic contents and contaminate our waters. In composting facilities, batteries could contaminate and limit the use of the resulting compost. In incinerators, the combustion of dry cell batteries containing toxic metals leads to elevated toxic air emissions, and increases the concentrations of toxic metals in the resulting fly and bottom ash. So it is imperative that we reduce the amount of these metals going to our landfills and incinerators where they can be released into the environment. Sixteen States, including New Jersey, have passed laws either to regulate certain types of dry cell batteries, or to study their disposal. Mr. President, dry cell batteries fall into two major categories. The first are primary batteries -- which include the familiar disposable alkaline manganese and zinc carbon types used in flash lights, toys, radios, and similar products. Primary batteries do not rely, in most cases, on toxic metals in their electrodes. Instead, most primary batteries incorporate relatively small amounts of heavy metals to suppress the unwanted formation of gases and to extend battery life. The other type of batteries are the secondary or rechargeable batteries, which include nickel cadmium and sealed lead rechargeable batteries. These batteries often are marketed separately, with rechargers, for the same uses as primary batteries. Alternatively, rechargeable batteries often are permanently installed into a variety of portable rechargeable tools and appliances, such as drills, flashlights, and hand-held vacuums. Because of technological constraints, secondary batteries rely on toxic metals in their electrodes, and therefore contain much higher levels of heavy metals than do regular primary batteries. At the beginning of this decade, rechargeable batteries occupied only about 8 percent of the total dry cell battery market -- which is about 350,000 batteries a year. With technological improvements, they are expected to make up roughly 20 percent of the market within the next decade. Because rechargeables can be re-used for several years, they use relatively less raw materials than disposable batteries, and thus reduce the environmental costs of extracting virgin metals. And Consumer Reports magazine has said, "[i]n the long run * * * rechargeables are far more economical [to the consumer] than disposables," and that "for now * * * rechargeable nickel cadmium cells represent the `greenest' [consumer] choice." That's why my bill supports the continued use of rechargeable batteries while at the same time encouraging that they are recycled or properly disposed at the end of their useful life. Mr. President, both primary and secondary batteries contain toxic heavy metals. However, they incorporate them for different reasons and in different amounts, and that is why my bill will treat them differently within a two-pronged Federal regulatory framework. The first part of this framework will reduce toxic metals at the source, by prohibiting the sale of alkaline manganese, zinc carbon and mercuric-oxide batteries with mercury concentrations that were intentionally introduced by dates established in the bill. The five companies responsible for most of primary battery sales in the United States -- Eveready, Duracell, Rayovac, Panasonic, and Kodak -- have already begun to reduce their mercury concentrations in line with this schedule, and I commend these companies for their efforts. In 1991, the battery industry consumed 92 percent less mercury than it did in 1984. This part of the bill would focus on those manufacturers who have not yet committed to these reductions. The second part of this framework would encourage the recycling of rechargeable batteries containing cadmium or lead. These batteries pose a special challenge because current technology does not allow for the toxic metal concentrations in these batteries to be reduced. Yet at the same time, these batteries serve many valuable applications and consumer and environmental benefits. The Portable Rechargeable Battery Association [PRBA] has proposed a comprehensive program for the collection and recycling of rechargeable batteries. My bill will assist PRBA in carrying out its recycling program. The bills contains a number of other elements designed to aid recycling efforts. Twelve months after the enactment of the act, rechargeable consumer products must be manufactured in a manner in which the rechargeable battery can be removable easily from the product or is contained in a battery pack separate from the product. Rechargeable batteries and rechargeable consumer products containing cadmium and lead must contain labels advising consumers to recycle or properly dispose of the battery. EPA would be required to establish a battery information dissemination program. Retailers selling rechargeable batteries containing cadmium or lead or rechargeable consumer products must display a notice that the batteries must be recycled or disposed at property. Most importantly, the bill changes existing law regarding the handling of these batteries from nonhousehold sources. EPA classifies spent rechargeable batteries containing cadmium or lead as hazardous and subjects them to hazardous waste regulations. This deters the recycling of these batteries without providing commensurate environmental benefits. My bill would address this problem by legislatively exempting the collection, storage and disposal of nonhousehold dry cell batteries from the hazardous waste requirements if the batteries are to be recycled. The bill will not exempt these batteries if they are destined for disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. Batteries collected from households already are exempted from the hazardous waste requirements under RCRA. EPA has already established precedent in this area, by excluding the wet cell lead acid batteries used in automobiles from hazardous waste requirements. And EPA has proposed to treat dry cell batteries in a similar matter. But EPA has been slow to take final action. The bill also authorizes the battery industry to undertake cooperative efforts to collect and properly manage used rechargeable batteries and rechargeable consumer products. The bill would give EPA the authority to promulgate rules regulating the sale of other dry cell batteries if they are found to pose a threat to human health or the environment. Penalties are established for violations of the act. And State battery programs, like the one in New Jersey, would not be preempted except for the labeling of batteries, consumer products and their packages. Finally, EPA would be required to prepare biennial reports to Congress which would document the recycling rate for rechargeable batteries and companies which are and are not participating in the voluntary recycling program. This information will give the Congress and the public information regarding the success and participation rates of the voluntary recycling program. As we have seen from publication of the Toxic Release Inventory established by the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, giving the public information can help spur voluntary efforts to reduce pollution. This bill will benefit States like New Jersey which have dry cell battery programs. The bill will further State efforts by: First, requiring the labeling of batteries to facilitate separation and recycling of batteries; second, removing the hazardous waste restrictions from collection, transportation and storage of dry cell batteries; and third, establishing a large, consistent supply of rechargeable batteries with cadmium and lead which will stimulate the growth of a domestic recycling industry. Mr. President, toxic heavy metals are a bane to our environment, our wildlife and our people. This bill will provide effective ways to reduce exposure to these dangerous metals. I want to commend the dry cell battery industry which has worked constructively in the development of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, together with letters of support from Portable Rechargeable Battery Association and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, be included in the Record. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce, with Senator Hatch, the Occupational Safety and Health Reform Act, which offers a fresh perspective to workplace safety that I believe is long overdue. Instead of relying on mandates and penalties, this legislation provides positive incentives for employers to address occupational safety. This bill is a companion bill, with minor modification, to the legislation that Representative Fawell introduced in the House of Representatives. I would like to thank Representative Fawell for his leadership on this issue. He deserves a great deal of credit for approaching health and safety in a new and innovative way. Mr. President, Congress first enacted our current workplace safety law, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, in 1970. We imposed a legal duty on employers to provide a safe and healthy workplace, and we created a new agency within the Department of Labor -- the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] -- to promulgate and enforce health and safety standards. When Congress first passed workplace safety legislation, we envisioned a Government agency that would work in partnership with private industry to improve working conditions for our country's men and women. We hoped employers would not fear OSHA inspections, because we anticipated OSHA would use inspections as an opportunity to educate supervisors on methods to improve workplace safety. Mr. President, I am not sure whether the Federal Government ever took that approach with the business community, but if that partnership ever did exist, it regrettably does not exist right now. Over the past 20 years, we have developed an adversarial relationship between the Federal Government and the private sector. OSHA and private industry no longer view their relationship as an alliance. Part of the problem is that OSHA too often relies on fines and penalties rather than on education and consultation. And part of the problem is that OSHA too often focuses on paperwork violations rather than on real safety deficits. As a result, OSHA has lost must of its credibility with the American people. The legislation that we are introducing today reverses this course. Rather than rely on more mandates and fines, which promote as adversarial relationship, this reform bill provides positive incentives for employers to address health and safety issues. My hope is that this will change OSHA's role from safety policeman to safety coach. Under this new reform initiative, those employers utilizing certified private sector safety experts to conduct safety audits would be exempt from regular OSHA inspections. In addition, employers with exemplary safety records that have implemented comprehensive safety programs also would be exempt from regular inspections. Finally, these employers would be eligible for reduced OSHA fines if a workplace accident did occur. There are several other provisions that I would like to highlight. For the first time, we have incorporated full congressional coverage into our workplace safety laws. Clearly we must learn to live by the same laws that we impose upon others. Second, we have included, with minor modification, the Teamwork for Employees And Management [TEAM] Act, S. 669, in the OSHA bill to assure that employers and employees can meet to discuss safety issues without violating our Federal labor laws. Employee involvement is crucial to identifying workplace hazards. The TEAM Act allows the myriad of employee involvement programs to continue without requiring it in a one-size-fits-all mandate. Third, we have expanded the on-site consultation program to assure that OSHA fulfills its obligation to work in partnership with the business community. Fourth, we have included a mediation procedure to facilitate resolution of conflicts when OSHA charges an employer with violating an OSHA standard or regulation. In addition, we have avoided placing an enormous unfunded mandate on State and local governments. Unlike the legislation introduced by Senator Kennedy, S. 575, we do not impose Federal workplace safety standards on State governments. Furthermore, we provide more flexibility for States that choose to operate their own safety programs. Under the legislation introduced today, we authorize the Federal Government to grant broad waiver authority for States to experiment with cutting edge, innovative methods of improving workplace safety. Mr. President, workplace safety is an important issue. The current system has failed to produce the type of consensus that Congress contemplated when it passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970. I hope that the Senate will act promptly on this legislation so we can truly assure every working man and woman a safe and healthy workplace. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Nancy Kassebaum, ranking member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, today in introducing the Occupational Safety and Health Reform Act. As I have commented repeatedly over the years, the goal of a safe and healthful workplace is not a Democrat versus Republican issue any more than it is an employer versus employee issue. We all agree that safety in American workplaces is a priority that we should all support and promote. There is significant disagreement, however, on the merits of different approaches to achieving this goal. The OSHA reform initiative that Senator Kassebaum and I are introducing today focuses on providing incentives rather than on imposing bigger fines and more mandates, and it encourages employers to proactively address workplace safety and health needs. It provides, for example, that employers using certified health and safety consultants -- either through OSHA's onsite consultation program or as part of an insurance carrier's loss control program -- to conduct health and safety audits, are exempt from regular OSHA inspections. Employers with better than average safety records and approved health and safety programs are also exempt. These and other provisions seek to focus resources where they are most needed and where they can do the most good. The principal emphasis should be on real workplace hazards; not on minor paperwork violations. No workplace accident that I know of has ever been prevented by filing forms. Mr. President, I believe that this bill is a major step toward improving health and safety in American workplaces. It is a commonsense approach, and I hope my colleagues will support it. Mr. President, on Tuesday of this week a Message from the President, transmitting the proposed Reemployment Act of 1994, was referred to the Committee on Finance. Today I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Bradley, Breaux, Daschle, Pryor, Riegle, Rockefeller, Boxer, Ford, and Moseley-Braun, in introducing the President's bill. This is the bill that Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has described as "converting the unemployment system into a genuine reemployment system." The history of the unemployment system as we know it today goes back to June 29, 1934, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6757, establishing a Committee on Economic Security. In that Executive Order the President charged the Committee with making recommendations on safeguards "against misfortunes which cannot be wholly eliminated in this man-made world of ours." Just six months later, on January 15, 1935, this Committee on Economic Security, ably headed by Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, transmitted to the President a report setting forth a series of recommendations that formed the basis for the Social Security Act of 1935, and for the social insurance system that we have today. One of the cornerstones of the Committee's proposals was for a program of unemployment insurance. As the Committee described it, unemployment insurance should permit a worker who is ordinarily steadily employed to draw a cash benefit for a limited period of unemployment "during which there is expectation that he will soon be reemployed." "Normally," the report noted, "the insured worker will return to his old job or find other work before his right to benefits is exhausted." That was the vision of Frances Perkins and those who worked with her. But they frankly admitted that their plan was experimental. They stated forthrightly in the report that their plan would "secure the much- needed experience necessary for the development of a more nearly perfect system." They were anticipating change. And there have been some changes in the unemployment program since it was enacted. One major change was the establishment of the extended benefits program in 1970 to deal with periods of more prolonged unemployment caused by recession. But over the years the unemployment insurance system has largely been ignored. It has served well many millions of unemployed American workers. But Administrations past, and the Congress, have not been appropriately diligent in periodically reexamining the system to make sure it is functioning appropriately, and accommodating to changes in the economy. Few would argue that we have achieved that "more nearly perfect system" that Secretary Perkins anticipated it would become. We are fortunate now to have a President and a Secretary of Labor who recognize the fundamental importance of the unemployment system for the economic well-being of American workers and their families. As Secretary Reich has noted, in recent years, because of technological and other changes in the economy, more and more workers are losing their old jobs, not temporarily, but permanently. Data for 1993 show that nearly eight of every ten unemployed job losers did not expect to return to their old jobs. That is why President Clinton and Secretary Reich speak of the need to transform the unemployment system into a system of reemployment, a system that will help permanently dislocated workers make the transition to new employment. That is a challenging task, but one that President Roosevelt and Secretary Perkins would be pleased has been assumed, these 60 years later. Mr. President, I want to commend the President and Secretary Reich for their leadership on this important issue. I look forward to working with the Administration as this legislation moves forward. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the President's message and a section-by-section analysis of the bill prepared by the Administration be printed in the Record. Mr. President, as I said on the floor last fall, the world is undergoing four fundamental transformations: The end of the age of ideology, the explosion of world markets, the knowledge revolution, and the evolving connection between economic growth and debt -- both public and private. Each of these transformations leads us to a more secure and prosperous future, but each transformation has also brought disruption, uncertainty, and job loss. Government must embrace these transformations but must ensure that every worker has an economic security platform from which to weather the changes. Health care, a secure pension, and lifetime education. To provide the last plank of that platform, to enable workers to move securely from job to job, Senator Moynihan and I today introduce the Reemployment Act on behalf of the President. The Reemployment Act will give every individual worker a new kind of security in the work force -- a security that is rooted in skills, and in the lifelong opportunity to upgrade those skills. Lifelong education allows us to face all the transformations in our economy, whatever the cause, with confidence. Without question, American workers do not believe the current system provides real security, and they are right. There are too many restrictions, too much confusion, and too few opportunities. Workers face a bureaucracy overwhelmed by paperwork requirements to classify workers into those who lost their jobs to defense cuts, imports, or for some other reason. The bureaucracy is so busy classifying workers and meeting the paperwork demands of all the disparate programs that they cannot respond to real needs. With the Reemployment Act, we will respond immediately when a plant closes, whether the plant is small or large, and we will guarantee training for every worker, whether the job is lost to technology, trade, corporate mergers, or just the natural cycle of creative destruction that makes capitalism work. The bill has five parts: Services and training for all dislocated workers; income support during training; one-stop career centers; national labor market information system; and reinvention labs for job training for the economically disadvantaged. The first component of the act provides a seamless program for reemployment of dislocated workers regardless of the cause of dislocation. Currently there are six dislocated worker programs: EDWAA [Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Act]; Defense Conversion Adjustment; Clean Air Employment Transition Assistance; Defense Diversification Program; TAA [Trade Adjustment Assistance]; and NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance. Six different programs that should provide security to dislocated workers. Six distinct programs that are currently unable to adequately serve the displaced worker population. The Reemployment Act of 1994 will consolidate these programs to provide greater outreach, individualized services, comprehensive reemployment services, and above all, quality training. This ambitious consolidated program, which will hold training providers accountable for results, draws largely on the lessons of State-level experiments, notably the Workforce Development Partnership Act in my own State of New Jersey. The second part of the bill provides income support for all dislocated workers who are in training. The promise of a consolidated training program is empty if workers cannot take advantage of it. Today, many workers do not get the training they need because they cannot afford to spend a year doing nothing but going to school. They need the training, the training is available, but they need to work, at any job they can get. Many dislocated workers are forced to take a job that pays much less than they were earning, and much less than they have the potential to earn with just some training on specific skills, such as moving from operating a lathe to operating a computer-assisted machine tool. To ensure that the potential of these workers is not wasted, successful programs use income support during training, along the lines of Trade Adjustment Assistance. This legislation ensures income support for anyone who has been working for three years, and aims to provide it if possible for any one who has been working for 1-3 years. Trade Adjustment Assistance has been a model program in helping workers deal with just one of the economic transformations that has been putting jobs at risk. The Reemployment Act consolidates TAA, but it does it in the right way, by ensuring that anyone who would have been eligible for TAA, even if they hadn't been working for three years, will receive everything they would have received under TAA -- training and income support. There have been some criticisms of TAA, particularly because of the number of workers who are permitted by waiver to receive income support without enrolling in training, but this legislation closes that loophole while broadening the reach of income support. I have one caveat about the administration's bill: Last year we enacted a special TAA program for workers dislocated as a result of NAFTA production shifts. While I believe that program should be consolidated along with the other five, I hope that NAFTA-dislocated workers have the same protection as TAA-eligible workers, even if they do not have 3 years on the job. One-stop career centers, established by the third title of this bill, will provide information on employment opportunities, education and training information, and services for anyone who needs help getting a job will be under one roof. Although there are still some serious questions to be worked out about the role of workforce investment boards and other agencies, one-stop career centers have the potential to transform through competition the cold and aloof bureaucracy that is most workers' first encounter with Government services for dislocated workers. Title IV establishes a national labor market information system that will provide timely, accurate, up-to-date information on available employment opportunities. Finally, the bill also provides for reinvention labs for job training for the economically disadvantaged. Together these five components -- services and training for all dislocated workers; income support during training; one-stop career centers; national labor market information system; and reinvention labs for job training for the economically disadvantaged -- will help to ensure that the 2.2 million full-time workers whose jobs are lost each year get back into the work force quickly, without losing income, and with higher skills and productivity. Lifetime education must mean more than just the training programs that are available through these services. It has to mean that anyone, at any age, can get whatever they need to move to the higher level. Three years ago, I proposed self-reliance loans as a way for anyone to get an education and repay a percentage of the income they will gain from that education. I am pleased that this legislation builds on the idea of income-contingent loans to serve those who want more traditional education, or who have not been in the work force for 1 year. We cannot survive with 40 percent of Americans with high wages, 40 percent with low wages, and 20 percent unemployable. The only sure way that America will provide its workers more jobs and higher wages is if they have higher skills. And the more American workers who have superior talents, the higher our productivity will be, and the faster the economy will grow. I believe this legislation will provide that economic security platform. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to add my brief remarks upon the introduction of President Clinton's new job retraining initiative: The Reemployment Act of 1994. I want to commend the President and Labor Secretary Robert Reich for their efforts on this proposal. Clearly we must rethink the way we serve dislocated workers, since the world has changed and good jobs are disappearing -- not temporarily, but permanently. I am an original cosponsor of this measure. Although I view it only as a starting point, I believe it is a healthy first step toward addressing our structural unemployment problems. I understand that the administration has relied on some outstanding models for the one-stop center concept, including one in Hamden, CT. This particular center happens to be working very well, and I am pleased that Secretary Reich was able to pay it a visit earlier this year. However, let's not kid ourselves, Mr. President -- the real issue is jobs. No matter how comprehensive our retraining programs are, they cannot succeed without real job growth. In my own State of Connecticut, we have lost thousands of defense- related jobs -- not hundreds, thousands. These are jobs that are not coming back. It seems to me that in cases such as these, with massive dislocations, the question is not about the quality of the job search or choosing the right training opportunity. In Connecticut, there simply aren't thousands of jobs in other fields waiting for them out there. In this current round of layoffs, the workers are older -- in their 40's and 50's -- with 10 or 20 years on the job. I recognize that in other parts of the country, the economy is improving, with new jobs being added. And I want to make it clear that I believe we ought to be doing all that we can to see to it that workers who are seeking help with job searches and retraining are getting the assistance that they need. But I also believe it would be a grave mistake to abandon what must be our primary mission -- to stimulate job creation. When I talk to people in Connecticut who are out of work, and I mention retraining, they frankly get angry with me. Clearly, the Federal Government cannot supply all the jobs that are needed. We need to focus on developing a partnership with the private sector; for example, by helping to direct capital into job-starved areas. We know that there is capital out there, but it still is not reaching a large segment of small business, where most of the job growth in the past few years has occurred. Unfortunately, past administrations put little faith in job retraining, insisting instead that job creation alone would ensure that all who wanted to work, could work. Well, I happen to agree with you, Secretary Reich, that without the necessary skills, many workers will continue to be shut out from good, high-paying jobs. But I would hate to see the pendulum swing too far the other way: By assuming that if we ready our work force for a new generation of jobs, those jobs will automatically appear on cue. I think we simply must concentrate on both job retraining and job creation. The two should complement each other. Mr. President, I know that the President and Secretary Reich are as committed to job growth as I am. And I want to reiterate my belief that we need to give workers the tools necessary to cope with the dynamic labor markets of the 21st century. I look forward to working with the administration on this most difficult and important challenge of adequately preparing our work force and seeing to it that the jobs will be there. I thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity to add my thoughts on this critically important issue. Mr. President, one of Washington, DC's most historic institutions is poised to celebrate an important milestone. In 1995, the U.S. Botanic Garden will mark 175 years of fulfilling George Washington's vision of a botanic garden at the seat of Government. The U.S. Botanic Garden is this country's oldest continuously operating botanic garden with a history almost as old as our Nation itself. Established in 1820, it is a valuable resource and a living library of permanent, international collections of tropical, subtropical, and desert plants. Its purpose as an educational display garden is to inform and educate visitors about the importance, and often irreplaceable value, of plants to the well-being of humankind and to the fragile environments that support all life. The programs provided by the garden include opening its doors free of charge to thousands of visitors from all over the world 365 days a year, hosting group tours, and sponsoring horticultural, botanical, and environmental classes at no charge. In recognition and celebration of this significant milestone in the life of our Capitol's closest neighbor on The Mall, several of my colleagues and I are proud to introduce legislation to authorize the minting of coins to commemorate the 175th Anniversary of the U.S. Botanic Garden. Proceeds from the sale of these coins will be paid to the National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden for the purpose of building the new National Garden at the U.S. Botanic Garden. The Architect of the Capitol, under the supervision of the congressional Joint Committee on the Library, has been authorized by legislation passed by the Congress in 1988 to design and construct the National Garden. Under a contract with the National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden, the Architect has designated the fund, a charitable (501)(c)(3) organization, as the primary means for soliciting private contributions for that purpose. The new National Garden will be a premier showcase for unusual, useful and ornamental plants that grow well in the Mid-Atlantic region. It will be built on a 3-acre site immediately adjacent to the Botanic Garden Conservatory, located on The Mall between Maryland and Independence Avenues. The three major features of the National Garden -- the Environmental Learning Center, the Rose Garden, and the Water Garden -- will provide a hands-on, living laboratory and a beautiful place to exhibit our national flower, the rose. The National Garden will expand the U.S. Botanic Garden's ability to address the public's concern for the environment. It will examine, in formal and informal settings, natural habitats, and the interrelationships between plants, humankind, and nature. Through its collections, exhibits, displays, and educational programs, it will communicate a benevolent attitude toward nature and will illuminate for the visitor the ecological and environmental responsibilities of individuals and society. It will be equipped to serve all people, including those who are physically challenged. Visitors will leave the National Garden with a heightened sense of stewardship and an understanding of their role and responsibility to preserve and protect for future generations. The National Garden will commemorate the bicentennial of the U.S. Congress and will be dedicated in 1995 in conjunction with the U.S. Botanic Garden's 175th anniversary. Sales of this commemorative coin will be an essential part of a national, broad-based effort to raise the funds necessary to build the National Garden and ensure that the dream becomes reality. The coin presents an opportunity to invest in the future of the Botanic Garden and enhance George Washington's vision of the Botanic Garden as a place where people of all ages from every corner of the world can come to study, be inspired and enjoy. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I am reintroducing my proposed constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college. I strongly believe in the principal of one person, one vote. Under the current system, the 11 most populous States could theoretically pick the President, even if the losing Presidential candidate won the popular vote by a wide margin. In the lull between Presidential elections, this is an ideal time to consider this change. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer again this amendment to the Constitution of the United States to eliminate the electoral college, to permit the director election of the Presidential ticket and to assure that the American President has the support of the majority of those who vote. Mr. President, I simply reference the situation that confronted us that all too quickly is forgotten about 18 months ago during the Presidential elections of 1992. You will remember at that time there was great concern in the country and great concern in the Congress about the fact that we had three prominent candidates for President of the United States. There were all kinds of concerns and discussions about different scenarios that might come to pass very easily and, therefore, the fact that no candidate would receive a sufficient number of electoral votes and the election of a President would be thrown into the House of Representatives. It seems to me, Mr. President, therefore, that I would emphasize once again this is indeed time for a change. I have offered this legislation in each Congress since 1988 and supported a similar bill offered by former Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana in 1979. It is time to do away with the electoral college and make the votes of every citizen count. The electoral college is an anachronism, a relic, an antique, not appropriate for a democracy over two centuries old. The United States is now mature enough to elect its own President. The American people also agree. Over the years, public opinion has consistently favored the direct election of the President. The electoral college is an anti-democratic institution. With its winner-take-all tradition, votes for opposing candidates in each State are essentially eliminated from consideration. Mr. President, it is a winner-take-all tradition because there is nothing to legally bind electors to vote any particular way. The electoral college could disregard the popular vote entirely and vote as they please. Several times in American history, including in the 1988 election, one or two so-called faithless electors voted for candidates of their own choosing. In a close three-way race a coalition of faithless electors could create a great deal of mischief. While an occasional faithless elector will not threaten the outcome of an election, three times in our Nation's history, Presidents were elected without a popular mandate. The 1992 election was almost a classic case in point. When H. Ross Perot was a strong candidate, there was a real possibility that the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives and Senate. My colleagues may remember the fall of 1992 when the news media was in a frenzy and House Members were being asked constantly for whom they would pledge their votes if the election should be thrown into that Chamber. This would be the most disruptive situation. An election would be thrown into the House of Representatives and the Senate when no candidate receives an electoral college majority. The House would pick the President from among the top 3 candidates, voting as 50 State delegations. The Senate would pick the Vice President from the top two candidates with each Senator having a single vote. Not only could the will of the people be thwarted, but the President and Vice President could be mixed and matched among the top three parties. If the 1992 election had been thrown to the House of Representatives, a President Clinton could have been required to serve for 4 years with a Vice President Quayle or Stockdale. Mr. President, the people should pick their President, not the electoral college or Congress. Yet, as recently as 1992, this type of chaos was a threat. The consequences for a future President, and the American people, would be hard to comprehend. But we know one thing -- this situation must be avoided. The electoral college is an institution which in theory could crush the will of the people. A Presidential ticket only needs to win the 11 largest States, even by the very narrowest margins, and lose all other States even by significant margins to be elected; regardless of the total popular vote. The last Presidential election is a dramatic case in point of why a change is necessary. Although we averted the House selecting the President and Vice President, we elected a President and Vice President with less than a majority of the popular vote. That is not majority rule. Fundamental to a democracy, the electoral college system must go. I reintroduce this legislation as I have in the past because my concern about the present obvious faulted system of the electoral college. It is based on a strong belief in the principle of one person-one vote in the selection of our President. The proposed constitutional amendment I introduce today eliminates the electoral college and allows the people to choose their President. Under this proposal, if no Presidential ticket should receive at least 50 percent of the popular vote and the majority of the vote in at least one-third of the States, a run-off election between the two highest vote-getters would be held. This system will guarantee that the will of the people will prevail but at the same time will protect the Nation against the regional factionalism feared by our Founding Fathers. I do not represent this proposed legislation to be the one and only way to bring more democracy to a Presidential election. The 1992 Presidential campaign brought the electoral college to the attention of many Americans for the very first time. I want to continue this national examination of our electoral process. I am especially delighted that the Nebraska State Legislature led by Lincoln Senator Dianna Schimek reexamined the Presidential electoral process and enacted a reform which allocates electors on a proportional basis. The Nebraska system, like Maine, awards electors for each congressional district carried by a Presidential ticket and the winner of the State receives two bonus electors. While the new system in Nebraska did not change the outcome of the 1992 election, the system is inherently more democratic than the winner-take-all approach. The Nebraska-Maine approach is a significant improvement in the current system. In my view a more democratic approach would be the change I recommend today. Our Nation's constitutional history is one of granting increasing democratic power to the people. The Nation has never been satisfied with the democratic status quo. The direct election of the President simply continues America's long march to improve and strengthen her democracy. I look forward to a continued national discussion and debate on the electoral college. I ask my colleagues to give this proposed constitutional amendment serious consideration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this proposed constitutional amendment be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Hatch to introduce a joint resolution designating the week beginning April 25, 1994, as "National Crime Victims' Rights Week." Every 22 minutes, an American is murdered. Every minute four women are battered, one woman is raped, six children are abused, and one person is robbed. There is no safe haven: We are not wholly safe on our streets or in our neighborhoods; our children are at risk in schools and on campuses; and even in what should be a sanctuary -- the home -- millions of Americans are attacked. Behind each of the faceless statistics is a human face. These victims often suffer devastating psychological, physical, and financial hardships. They need and deserve quality care. They need and deserve services and support programs to help them recover from their tragedies. Over 10,000 public and private agencies and organizations in the United States are dedicated to lessening the suffering of victims. Yet often, these victim assistance advocates -- who work tirelessly on behalf of our Nation's victims -- are not given proper recognition. Although they often go unthanked, they are not unappreciated. These people deserve our respect and encouragement for their valiant efforts. This resolution pays tribute to the many men and women who give so much of their lives to help put back the lives of this Nation's crime victims. Last year, Congress passed this resolution in recognition of victims and those who champion their rights with strong bipartisan support. I look forward to the same support this year. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the full text of the resolution be printed in the Record.