John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to issue a certificate of documentation for the vessel Consortium under title 46, United States Code. A recently formed Rhode Island corporation, Marine Consortium, Inc., has purchased the 102-foot Camper and Nicholson motoryacht, Consortium. It is a U.S. documented vessel homeported in Newport, RI, and is ideally suited for charter operation. Because Consortium has a foreign built--British--hull, it cannot undertake charters in U.S. waters. Its owners seek a waiver of this Jones Act prohibition so that they may engage in Operation of the Consortium would build upon the economic vitality of Newport County. Its owners have also offered to make the vessel available at no cost to the Newport Preservation Society, the Museum of Yachting, and the Save the Bay Foundation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to issue a certificate of documentation for the vessel Intrepid under title 46, United States Code. The Intrepid has a long and proud history in sailing, including representing the United States in the America's Cup and winning in 1967 and 1971. It is currently U.S.-owned and is the Flagship of the America's Cup Hall of Fame. The Intrepid is a 12 meter yacht, 65 feet in length that was built at the Minneford Boat Yard in City Island, NY in 1967. At the time of its construction, the vessel employed the breakthrough technology of noted boat designer Olin Stephen. In a departure from the past, its design separated the keel and rudder, and added a trim tab on the trailing edge of the keel. Variations of this technology are still being used today. Because the Intrepid was at one point sold to non-U.S. owners and thus became ineligible to participate in U.S. coastwise trade, the owners seek a waiver of the Jones Act. They plan to use the vessel only in limited commercial ventures, and the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If granted this waiver, Intrepid's owners intend to fully comply with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to an outstanding civil servant. On February 28, 1995, Dr. Morgan R. Rees, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning, Policy and Legislation at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works, retired after a long and distinguished career of Federal service. Dr. Rees joined the Army Corps of Engineers in 1969 as a Civil Engineering Project Manager in the New England Division. From 1973 to 1981, he served as the Chief of the Regulatory Branch in the New England Division. In 1981, Dr. Rees became the Chief of the Regulatory and Policy Section, Civil Works Directorate, Office of the Chief of Engineers. The following year, he was named Assistant for Regulatory Programs in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works. Dr. Rees was promoted again in 1986 to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning, Policy and Legislation. Mr. President, as many in the Senate are aware, Dr. Rees played a major role for the Army in the passage of the landmark Water Resources Development Act of 1986. I have worked with him on the passage of each Water Resources Development Act since then. Dr. Rees' career record reflects the professionalism and dedication found at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I want to commend him for his many valued contributions to the Army, the Congress of the United States, and the Nation. On behalf of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I want to wish him the very best in his future endeavors.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, there is no greater problem facing the country today than our continual failure to balance the Federal budget. Unfortunately, this is not a new phenomenon. Over the past 33 years we have balanced the budget once, one-quarter of a century ago in 1969. Had the Social Security program not generated a surplus, we would not have balanced the budget in that year either. Furthermore, the forecasts put out by the Congressional Budget Office and the administration show that, absent dramatic action on our part, these deficits will not end any time soon. For example, CBO predicts that the deficit in the year 2005 could be as high as $421 billion. The President's budget, which was released early this month, forecasts Federal deficits of approximately $200 billion for each of the next 5 years, and gives no promise that they will decline taken little action to address this problem. In the President's plan, $81 billion of deficit reductions are relatively minor when it is realized those occur over 5 years; $60 billion of those cuts come from keeping discretionary spending at today's level. Why is it bad that the Federal Government routinely spends more than it takes in? We are told in soothing tones by the administration that the deficits are each year predicted to be a lower percentage of the gross domestic product. That is somehow meant to be grand news, even though the dollar amounts of the deficits constantly grow. The problem is that every year we run a deficit, we must borrow to fund the shortfall. From the beginning of our country until today, we have incurred a debt of about $5 trillion, with the overwhelming portion of that accumulated over the past 15 years. The cost of servicing that debt will total $339 billion in 1995, making interest the second highest single Federal expenditure after Social Security. To put this number in perspective, our gross interest expense for 1995 is more than the entire Federal budget 20 years ago. Imagine how this money could be used to improve our education, or better our health care system, or bolster our efforts to combat crime. Aside from diverting resources that could be used for much better purposes, the deficit also places a great strain on the national economy. The most notable effect is on interest rates. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, recently testified before the Finance Committee on this subject. According to Chairman Greenspan ``investors here and abroad are exacting from issuers of dollar-denominated debt an extra inflation risk premium that reflects not their estimate of the most likely rate of price level increase over the life of the obligation, but the possibility that it could prove to be significantly greater.'' This risk premium is directly the result of our large Federal budget deficits. These artificially high interest rates affect all Americans. Families pay this risk premium when they borrow money for a home, for a new car, to finance their children's education. The Federal deficit also has a negative effect on future economic growth. Our potential to expand the economy is directly linked to the amount we invest in physical and human capital. Newer and better machinery, and a work force whose skills are continually updated, provide the foundation for increasing our output of goods and services. With this higher productivity comes a higher standard of living. To achieve this, however, we must have a pool of national savings from which this investment can be made. Unfortunately, our national savings rate has declined dramatically over the last decade, in part because the Federal Government has engaged in a policy of dissaving through its deficit spending. The Federal Government's reliance on borrowing to pay its bills crowds out the private sector, making it more difficult for it to obtain financing. But the worse consequence of this fiscal irresponsibility is that we are jeopardizing the economic futures of our children and grandchildren. We are living beyond our means and passing along the bill to future generations. I recently ran across a paper which described this problem. The paper discussed the idea of generational accounting, which a process of measuring how Government policies affect the distribution of income and wealth among different generations rather than simply over a 5- or 10- year budget period. To make this comparison, the authors calculated lifetime net tax rates for various generations. My generation will face a lifetime net tax rate of 26 percent. This compares to a lifetime net tax rate of 34 percent for a person born in 1991. What is troubling is the gloomy forecast for future generations. According to this analysis, if we do not take action to improve our fiscal situation, future generations will face lifetime tax rates that approach 70 percent. In other words, future generations can look forward to handing over 70 cents of each dollar earned to the Government if we do not reverse our present course. For the past few years the administration has also included a generational analysis in its budget documents. Its analyses generated results that were similar to the figures just mentioned. Unfortunately, the President chose to delete this section from this year's budget. Why will future generations face such a daunting tax bill? Consider the obligations we have levied upon them. The Social Security Program, while solvent today, faces drastic long-term problems once the baby- boom generation--born in the 1950's--retires. The surpluses, that the program is currently generating, will reverse in the year 2013 and will quickly evaporate, leaving workers in the middle of the next century with a hefty bill for providing retirement benefits for those working today. On top of that, the general fund has amassed $5 trillion in debt to date and is likely to add $750 billion more even with the passage of the balanced budget amendment. At some point that debt must be repaid. What exactly does the balanced budget amendment do? Very simply, it prohibits Federal outlays from exceeding Federal receipts unless a three-fifths majority of both Houses of Congress approve a specific deficit. In other words, it says that Congress can only spend what it is willing to collect in taxes, unless Congress determines that there is a legitimate reason for running a deficit. Such a situation could arise, for example, if the country fell into a recession or was hit with a natural disaster. But those would be the exceptions which Congress would expressly authorize. The balanced budget constraint on Congress would be comparable to that which every American family faces. Mr. President, this amendment makes fiscal responsibility the norm rather than the exception. The Federal Government has failed to balance its budget for 25 straight years. Over this period there have been both Republicans and Democrats in the White House, and the Senate has had both Republican and Democratic majorities. Neither party is free from blame. The truth is, there has not been the will to make the tough decisions necessary to balance the budget The amendment before the Senate today demands the same fiscal responsibility from the President that it establishes for Congress. It requires the administration to submit a budget to Congress in which outlays do not exceed receipts. I think that makes perfect sense. It recognizes that both branches of Government must participate in this very difficult task if we are to succeed. In addition to requiring a balanced budget, the amendment requires a majority of the whole number of each House of Congress to approve, by a rollcall vote, legislation raising revenue. Frankly, this is not a critical component of this proposal, because historically most tax bills have passed Congress with constitutional majorities. However, I am grateful that the sponsors have not sought to include a three-fifths majority requirement for raising revenue. That issue was considered and rejected by the House, and rightly so. That provision would be disastrous for this country, because it would significantly hamper our ability to govern. Facing a potential deficit, Congress would, in all likelihood, be forced to cut spending rather than raise revenue because the latter would be much more difficult to accomplish. While I support spending cuts over tax increases, it would be unwise for us to tilt the playing field against raising revenue as part of the Constitution. I would not support this amendment if the three-fifths majority for raising revenue were included in it. The amendment includes a process whereby its requirements could be waived by a simple majority for any year in which a declaration of war is in effect or where the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent threat to national security. I think those are legitimate circumstances to warrant deficit spending, and the amendment provides the appropriate amount of flexibility to adequately address them. Mr. President, the amendment encompasses the entire Federal budget. Section 7 states that ``total receipts shall include all receipts of the United and that ``total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.'' What this means is that every dollar that comes into the Treasury and every dollar that goes out of the Treasury will be counted in determining whether the budget is balanced. Again, this makes eminent sense and is exactly the way every family in America must manage its fiscal affairs. Much of the effort to derail this resolution has centered on excluding certain programs from the balanced budget requirement. In fact, this assault began during the amendment's consideration in the Judiciary Committee, when an effort was made to exclude Social Security. Mr. President, I find it inconceivable that we would consider adopting, as part of the Constitution, an exclusion for Social Security or any other aspect of the federal budget. I am firmly behind protecting the fiscal soundness of the Social Security System, but I think it is absurd to exempt a program that represents 29% of all Federal receipts and 22% of all Federal outlays. The true folly with this effort to protect Social Security is that by applying different rules to that program it becomes a magnet for efforts to circumvent the balanced budget amendment. Other federal programs will begin to find their way under the Social Security umbrella, and we will have achieved little if anything in the way of deficit reduction. This loophole, once opened, would be very difficult to shut. Exempting Social Security receipts would also provide a perverse incentive for future Congresses to shift Social Security taxes revenues to the general fund. This action would be particularly attractive since the program currently collects more in revenue than it pays out in benefits. But such an action would seriously undermine the actuarial balance of the Social Security trust fund, and would almost certainly require draconian changes in the future in order to stave off bankruptcy when the baby boom generation retires. The irony of the exemption for Social Security is that, unless our fiscal house is in order, we won't be able to meet our Social Security obligations. And unless Social Security is factored into the balanced budget equation, we will not get our fiscal house in order. Critics of the balanced budget amendment argue that it is a sham; that it avoids the rough choices required to balance the budget. I strongly disagree. What it represents is the first and most important step in a long and very difficult journey to fiscal responsibility. It symbolizes that the tides have finally changed; that we are committed to living within our means, and that we are willing to embody that principle in the document that sets forth the foundation on which our whole system of government operates. Other fiscal disciplines we have enacted, while important, have not done the job. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit control laws, the firewalls, the discretionary spending caps, and the pay-as-you-go rules have failed to break the attractive lure of deficit spending. Opponents have argued that we should not pass a balanced budget amendment until its supporters outline specifically how we plan to reach that goal. That was the so-called right-to-know amendment to the resolution before us. But this is simply a smokescreen thrown up by those in this Chamber who have no intention of supporting this proposal, whether or not a plan is outlined. The fact is, there is no agreed upon path to reaching a balanced budget. The path that I would prescribe is likely to be different than the paths that other members might advance. Any plan that will be adopted to reach this goal, will be the product of numerous compromises and the give and take of the normal political process. All of that will take place once the requirement is established. The appropriate time frame for outlining how to balance the budget is after we have committed ourselves to making that the law of the land. It is the process that we are trying to change with this proposal. To those who do not support the resolution before us I ask: What is your plan? Are you content with the current situation where annual deficits exceed $200 billion for the foreseeable future? Do you believe that if we put this problem off for another day, it will get easier? Do you believe that we are improving our children's futures by dropping this massive debt in their laps? Mr. President, every previous effort to balance the budget without an amendment to the Constitution--that is, by statute--has failed to achieve that goal. Why has that been the case? The answer is simple. Once the targets become too difficult to meet, we simply changed the law. This resolution makes it difficult for us to avoid our responsibility. The task is monumental, but the consequences for our failure are far worse. If this amendment is defeated, the ones who will be hurt the most are the future generations of our nation.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, there is no greater problem facing the country today than our continued failure to balance the Federal budget. Unfortunately, this is not a new phenomenon, as has been pointed out here on the floor by earlier speakers. Over the past 33 years, we have balanced the budget once and that was a quarter of a century ago in 1969. Had the Social Security program not generated a surplus, we would not have balanced the budget in that year either. Furthermore, the forecast put out by the Congressional Budget Office and the administration show that absent dramatic action on our part, these deficits are not going to end any time soon. It is not that we are just on the edge of ending the deficits through normal action, absent this balanced budget amendment. For example, CBO predicts that the deficit in the year 2005, 10 years from now, could be as high as $421 billion. The President's budget, which was released early this month, forecasts Federal deficits of approximately $200 billion for each of the next 5 years. So in the next 5 years the President himself predicts we are going to have $200 billion of deficits. The Congressional Budget Office says 10 years from now those $200 billion deficits are going to rise to $421 billion a year. Even worse than this dire prediction of what is going to happen is that the President has taken little action to address this problem. The $81 billion of deficit reduction in the President's plan is really relatively minor when it is realized that this $81 billion of deficit reduction occurs over 5 years, and, $60 billion of those savings come from keeping spending at the current level, not from making any cuts; just from keeping it where it is. Why is it bad that the Federal Government routinely spends more than it takes in? We are told in soothing tones by the administration that it is very important to note that the deficits for each year in the future are going to be a lower percentage of the gross domestic product. That is somehow meant to be grand news. What the administration tells us is do not worry, that for each of the future years the deficits are going to be a smaller part, an ever decreasing part of the Federal budget each year. Somehow that is meant to be good news, even though the dollar amounts of the deficits constantly grow. The problem is that every year we run a deficit we have to borrow to fund the shortfall. From the beginning of our country until today, we have incurred a debt--I believe the Senator from Ohio touched on this-- we have incurred a debt of about $5 trillion with the overwhelming portion of that accumulated over the past 15 years. The cost of servicing that debt, the gross interest, will total $339 billion in 1995. In 1995, just to pay the gross interest on the debt is $339 billion. This is the second largest expenditure in the Federal budget after Social Security. To put this number in perspective, our gross interest expense for 1994, this $339 billion, is more than the entire budget of the country 20 years ago. Just imagine if we were not spending that $339 billion, what we could do to improve our education, or to spend some of that money--not all of it but some of it--to help our education, help our health care system, or to bolster our efforts to fight crime. Aside from diverting resources that could be used for much better purposes, the deficit also puts a tremendous strain on our national economy. The most notable effect of this is on our interest rates. Alan Greenspan, who is before the Finance Committee. This is what he said: Investors here and abroad are exacting from issuers of dollar-denominated debt an extra inflation risk premium that reflects not their estimate of the most likely rate of price level increase over the life of the obligation, but the possibility it could prove to be significantly greater. Let us translate that into English we all can understand. What Mr. Greenspan was talking about was a risk premium. What is a risk premium? A risk premium is the extra amount that anyone who issues debt, anyone who issues a long-term bond, must pay in interest because the buyers of that bond can predict with some measure of surety what the rates will be in the future but they have to add to it a factor, what Mr. Greenspan called the risk premium, because the country is running such large deficits that the fear of inflation is always there; the fear that inflation will come, that the Government will print money in order to get rid of this deficit. Thus this risk premium is added to any issuance--Ford Motor Co. or the U.S. Government--anybody who issues bonds that might last, for example, 20 years. If the buyer of that bond were assured that this country was on a process of balancing its budget, then he would not seek that risk premium and the bonds could be issued at a lower interest rate. Thus these artificially high interest rates affect all Americans. Families pay a risk premium when they borrow money for a home or when they borrow money for a new car or to finance their children's education. The Federal deficit also has a negative effect on future economic growth. Our potential to expand the economy in the United States is directly linked to the amount we invest in physical and human capital. What are we talking about, physical or human capital? We are talking about new machinery or we are talking about training the work force, bringing its skills up to date. We are talking about providing a foundation for increasing our output of goods and services. With this higher productivity comes a higher standard of living in our country. To achieve this, however, we must have a pool of national savings from which the investment can be made. Unfortunately, our national savings rate has declined dramatically over the last decade, partly because the Federal Government has engaged in what is known as dissaving. In other words, it is not saving money, it is borrowing money through this deficit spending. The Federal Government's reliance on borrowing to pay its bills crowds out the private sector. The Federal Government comes in, has to borrow money-- obviously there is not money left to lend at a low rate to you and me and businesses and others who want to borrow. The worst consequence of this fiscal irresponsibility is that we are jeopardizing the economic futures of our children and grandchildren. We are living beyond our means and we are passing the bill to these future generations. Recently I ran across a paper which discussed the idea of generational accounting. What does this mean? It is the process of measuring how Government policies affect the distribution of income and wealth among different generations. To make this comparison, the authors calculated the lifetime net tax rates. My generation--I was born in the 1920's--is facing a net tax rate over our lifetimes of 26 percent. Of everything we earn, 26 percent will go for taxes. For somebody who is born in 1991, the lifetime net tax rate is not 26 percent, it is 34 percent. That is not so bad, you say--34 percent. I can handle that, perhaps. But according to this analysis, if we do not take action to improve the Federal domestic situation, future generations, generations born, grandchildren born, children born, individuals born, starting in 1995, 1996, 1997 will face lifetime tax rates not of 26 percent, not of 34 percent, but of 70 percent. In other words, future generations can look forward to handing over 70 cents of every dollar earned to the Government if we do not reverse our course. For the past few years the administration has also included a generational analysis in its budget documents. Unfortunately, the President chose to delete that section from this year's budget. But the figures were similar to the ones I just pointed out. Why will future generations face such a daunting tax bill? Consider the obligations we have levied upon them. The Social Security program has been generating surpluses. The surpluses will turn. They will no longer start, will end, and pretty soon the program will not be bringing in surpluses. That is in the year 2013. That leaves workers in the middle of the next century with a hefty bill to pay to provide retirement benefits for those who are retiring today. On top of that, we have incurred this $5 trillion in debt, which I mentioned before. That is likely to increase by $750 billion even with the passage of this balanced budget amendment. Obviously, at some point, all of this has to be repaid. What exactly does the balanced budget do? Very simply, it prohibits Federal outlays from exceeding Federal receipts unless a three-fifths majority of both Houses of Congress approves a specific deficit. In other words, it says that Congress can only spend what it is willing to collect in taxes, unless Congress determines a specific reason for and a legitimate reason for running a deficit. This could happen if there is a recession, if there is a natural disaster. Absent those situations, the country has to run a balanced budget. This amendment will make fiscal responsibility the norm rather than the exception. As has been said, the Federal Government has run a deficit for 25 straight years. There have been Republican Presidents. There have been Democratic Presidents. There have been Republican Senators. There have been Democratic Senators. Neither body is free from blame. The truth is there has not been the will to make the tough decisions to balance the budget. I listen to these people say there is no need to have this, that all we have to do is show some courage. But the truth of the matter is, we have not shown that courage. So we have to go to this artificial procedure, and the Senator from Connecticut says it has more words than the first five amendments. So what? What does that prove? The amendment before us today demands the same fiscal responsibility from the President that it establishes for Congress. The administration has to submit a balanced budget. I am grateful that the sponsors have not sought to include a three- fifths majority requirement for raising revenue. That was discussed. You have to have 60 votes to increase taxes. That was rejected by the House, and rightfully so. That provision would be disastrous for this country because it would significantly hamper our ability to govern. Facing a deficit, Congress would in all likelihood be forced to cut spending rather than to raise revenue because the latter--to raise revenue--requires 60 votes. I support spending cuts over tax increases but feel it would be unwise to tilt the playing field against raising revenue. In other words, you need 60 votes to increase taxes but you only need 51 votes to cut spending. I would not support this amendment if it had the three-fifths majority for raising revenue. But fortunately, it is not in there. The amendment includes a process whereby the requirements can be waived by a simple majority for any year in which the country is in war or when the United States is engaged in a military conflict. I think these are legitimate circumstances. In section 7 of the amendment, it states that the total receipts, all receipts, of the U.S. Government except those derived from borrowing and total outlays should include outlays for the U.S. Government except those for the repayment of debt principal. What this means is that every dollar that comes in to the Treasury and every dollar that goes out of the Treasury will be counted in determining whether the budget is balanced. Again, this makes sense. This is the way we run our families. We count the dollars that come in and the dollars that go out, except for borrowing, obviously. Much of the efforts to derail this resolution has centered on excluding certain programs from the balanced budget amendment. This all started in the Judiciary Committee when an effort was made to exclude Social Security. I find this inconceivable. Why would we adopt as part of the Constitution an exclusion for Social Security or any the fiscal soundness of the Social Security system. But it is absurd to exempt a program that represents 29 percent of all Federal receipts and 22 percent of all outlays. A big chunk of the budget would be disregarded in all of this process, if that had been adopted. Thank goodness, it was rejected. Exempting Social Security receipts would provide a perverse incentive for future Congresses to shift Social Security revenues to the general fund. This should be very attractive since the program currently collects more in revenue than it pays out in benefits. But this would undermine the actuarial balance of the Social Security trust fund, and would certainly require draconian changes in the future in order to stave off bankruptcy when the baby boomers retire. Critics of the balanced budget amendment have argued that it is a sham, that it avoids, as I mentioned previously, the tough choices required to balance the budget. I disagree. What this represents is the first and most important step in a long and difficult journey to fiscal responsibility. It symbolizes the tide has finally changed; we are committed to living within our means, and we are willing to embody that principle in the basic document of the Nation, on which the foundation of all our Government rests; namely, the Constitution. Other fiscal disciplines we have enacted, while they are important-- and I voted for every single one them--have not done the job. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit control laws, the firewalls, the discretionary spending caps, the pay-as-you-go rules--all of these we have tried. As I say, I voted for every single one of them, and have supported them when they have attempted to be amended. But they failed to break the attractive lure of deficit spending. Opponents have also argued we should not pass a balanced budget amendment until the supporters of it outline specifically how we reach that goal. This is nonsense, in my judgment. It is like a doctor saying you have to lose 40 pounds. ``I am not going to lose 40 pounds until you tell me specifically how I am going to do it.'' Well, the objective is, if you want to keep your health, you had better lose that 40 pounds. There are a variety of ways you can do it. You can work those out yourself, as long as you get there, to lose the 40 pounds. You can go on a diet. You can eat less. You can go through health plans. You can exercise more. You can try different approaches. But the end result is you have to get there. That is what we have said. The so-called right-to-know amendment to the resolution before us really is a smokescreen thrown up by those who had no intention of supporting this proposal, whether or not we had outlined the specifics as to how we are going to get there. The fact is, there is no agreement upon the path to reach a balanced budget. The path that I would subscribe to is likely different from the path that others would subscribe to. Any plan will be the product of numerous compromises and the give and take of a normal political process. All that is going to take place once the requirement is established. To those who do not support the resolution before us, the question is: What would you do? How would you get there? Are you content with the current situation where the annual deficits exceed $200 billion, and in the foreseeable future going up greater than that? Ten years from now, it will be $451 billion, as I said. Do people believe we can put this problem off for another day; that somehow it is going to get easier? Do you believe we are improving our children's future by dropping this massive debt in their laps? Every previous effort to balance the budget without an amendment to the Constitution has been a failure, as I mentioned. Why has that been the case? The answer is simple. Once the targets become too difficult to meet, Congress changes the law or budgets. This resolution makes it difficult for us to avoid our responsibilities. The task is monumental, but the consequences for our failure are far worse. If this amendment is defeated, the ones who will be hurt the most are future generations of this country. So for our children's and our grandchildren's sake, and for those of future generations, I fervently hope that this balanced budget amendment is approved here, and approved in the States likewise. I thank the Chair. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator Warner. In the succeeding days, I am sure that others will come forward with statements commemorating other events that took place 50 years ago in Iwo Jima as the battle progressed for those 35 plus days, and which, as I say, those who studied the wars in the Pacific--many of them, not all--say that was the most ferocious battle. I thank the senior Senator from Virginia and the Chair. Also, I would like to thank the senior Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, first I want to thank the distinguished senior Senator from Arkansas for letting us interrupt the sequence. Last week, Madam President, following the inspiring remarks by that very senior Senator from Arkansas, there were several very eloquent and moving statements made on this floor regarding the battle for Iwo Jima and the 50th anniversary which we are commemorating currently. Over the next several days, there will be additional statements dealing with that battle which many believe was the most ferocious of the Pacific war. The actual invasion commenced on February 19, 1945, with the battle lasting 35 days. On February 22, 50 years ago yesterday, D-day plus 3, marines from the 4th and 5th Divisions continued their relentless attack against entrenched enemy positions on Iwo Jima. It was very difficult going. The first 2 bloody days on the island netted gains at a high price in marines killed and wounded--an indication of what was going to come in the succeeding 32 additional days of combat. The job of taking Mount Suribachi, the 556-foot high extinct volcano at the southern end of Iwo Jima, fell to the 28th Marine Regiment commanded by Col. Harry E. Liversedge. On the slopes of Mount Suribachi, the Japanese had constructed an exceedingly clever labyrinth of dug-in machine gun emplacements. These defensive positions were accompanied by an elaborate cave and tunnel system. From the volcano's rim--that is the top of Mount Suribachi-- everything that went on at both sets of the invasion beaches and, indeed, on most of the island, could be observed. Mount Suribachi was a position that had to be taken by the marines. The men of the 28th Marine Division were the ones that did it. Just 50 years ago today, February 23, 1945, Mount Suribachi was captured by those valiant marines, and so I think it is only fitting, Madam President, that we do take a few minutes to recall the heroism and the constancy and valor of those marines who seized that position. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Warner in introducing legislation today that will approve the designation of the National Highway System. As my colleagues will remember, the Environment and Public Works Committee fashioned what I believe is a landmark surface transportation bill now known as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 or ISTEA. The purpose of this surface transportation law is to provide mobility for all our citizens, to enable our country to be competitive internationally, to promote economic development, and to provide transportation facilities that are sensitive to the environment and the communities they pass through. The National Highway System, established by the surface transportation law, is an important part of our country's National Transportation System. The National Highway System, which includes the Interstate System represents 4 percent of the highway system but carries 40 percent of the Nation's highway travel. Even more importantly, it connects intermodal and strategic facilities including our ports, airports, train stations, and military bases. The U.S. Department of Transportation worked with the States and local governments to develop the National Highway System. In December of 1993 the Department transmitted the proposed System to Congress. Congress must approve the National Highway System by September 30 of this year, or States will not receive over $6 billion in highway funds. The NHS legislation we are introducing today maintains the important principles that ISTEA established for the National Highway System. First, it maintains the flexibility of the NHS so that the System can change as our transportation needs change. The legislation enables States, in consultation with local officials, and the Secretary of Transportation to add to and delete routes from the System. Second, the amount of funding a State receives for the NHS program is not tied to the number of miles it has on the NHS System. There is no incentive to pad the System with a lot of miles in hopes of receiving more of the Federal money. And third, the NHS funds retain their flexibility. States continue to have the ability to transfer NHS funds to other categories to target their highest priority needs. In addition to the approval of the National Highway System, the legislation we are introducing today includes several other provisions that are in keeping with the principles of ISTEA to provide flexibility wherever possible. Stability is very important in the Federal-aid highway program. States need the assurance of long-term funding to efficiently manage their transportation programs. As the NHS legislation makes its way through Congress this year, there may be a temptation to reopen the surface transportation law and debate items that are controversial. To disrupt this program and make significant changes in midstream will damage the transportation program. If we are to meet the September 30 deadline for approval of the National Highway System, contentious issues must be postponed until ISTEA is reauthorized in 1997. I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing the National Highway System bill and will work with them for its early approval.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Child Support Act of 1995, introduced by Mr. Bradley. With over half of our marriages ending in divorce in the United States, and more and more children being born out-of-wedlock, single parent households have become more and more common. Most of the children in these homes grow up to be healthy and happy contributors to our society. Too many, however, are abandoned by a parent at a young age and struggle into adulthood. Mom or Dad, while raising a child, is working to make ends meet--without the help of the child's other parent. We have spent a great deal of time talking about family and the role of the State in preserving traditional families. We have talked at great length about how to help poor unwed and single mothers become independent from government handouts. Certainly, a central factor as to why these mothers are on welfare in the first place and may not be able to get off, is because of the lack of support coming from their child's father. Only 58 percent of single mothers had a child support order in 1990-- the vast majority of single mothers had applied for such an order but were unsuccessful in receiving one. The numbers are quite stark: over half of the 17.2 million children in single parent homes in our Nation are living in poverty. I think there is consensus on this issue--Republican or Democrat, Rhode Islander or Mississippian--we all agree that the time has come for Congress to become more involved in ensuring that children are not cheated out of a healthy childhood. This legislation does an admirable job of addressing the problems of ``dead-beat'' parents. Currently, States have a rather haphazard way of collecting child support. With the ease in which citizens move from one State to another, there is a real need to have strong and efficient communication between the States in collecting child support. This legislation addresses this problem through the creation of a national data base of child support orders. States will be required to periodically contribute new child support orders to this registry which may then be accessed by other states. Clearly, such a program aids greatly in tracking down interstate cases. In addition, by requiring parents to exchange financial information annually and streamlining the collection and distribution policy of the States, this legislation will make it far less complicated to ensure that those families deserving of child support moneys will get it. I would urge my colleagues to support this crucial legislation. By some estimates, in 1990, if we had enforceable child support orders reflecting ability to pay, single mothers and children would have received nearly $50 billion in child support. I am sure that you would agree that such a number is astounding. This money is wilfully being kept from the children who need it. We cannot, in good conscience, talk about reforming our welfare system without discussing more effective ways to ensure that poor children are in fact receiving the fiscal and emotional support that they need in order to grow and to thrive. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to the senior Senator from Arkansas for the very eloquent remarks he made--and it is so fitting that he did so for this body and for all of us--about what took place in Iwo Jima. I was not at Iwo Jima. I do not know if anybody in this Chamber was in the Battle of Iwo Jima. There is no question that there were fierce battles in the Pacific in World War II. I think Senator Bumpers has portrayed it so eloquently--the values, why the whole thing took place. It took place exactly as he said--so that those bombers which were going from Tinian, from Guam, to Japan would have a place, if they were shot up, as they were, to seek a harbor of refuge, as it were. I can remember. I was a young marine at the time on Guam. For the bombers on Guam, they built two parallel strips for those B-29's to take off. And they would take off on the minute on one runway and on the half minute on the other runway. They assembled some 500 of them on these trips to Japan. It was between a 16- and 18-hour round trip for those bombers. Then, of course, when they completed their mission over Japan, after flying up there, a 7- to 8-hour trip up there with those great loads, then they would start back, many of them badly shot up, and their goal was to get to Iwo Jima. The time I am talking about was some months after we had secured Iowa Jima. I had a friend in one of those B-29's. He was the pilot. He radioed ahead to Iwo Jima that he was in a condition 3. As I recall, that was a term for the really desperate to land, and that gave him priority. You set your own conditions based upon the number of engines out and the amount of gas you had left. They said to him, ``How much fuel do you have? How long can you circle?'' He said for 4 minutes. They said, ``Circle for 3 minutes. Your priority is set.'' So he made it safely. But that shows you the congestion that was at Iwo Jima and the value of that. So, as Senator Bumpers so eloquently pointed out, 6,000 men were lost, and it was a terrible thing. It was a case where they gave their lives for Bumpers indicated some 25,000--I can well believe that figure--airmen were saved. So it was a dramatic period, when the very best came out in our country and those who were there. I am so glad Senator Bumpers called our attention to it.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today we are considering the resolution that authorizes the funding levels for Senate committees for the next 2 years. I would like to offer hearty congratulations to the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Rules and Administration for making substantial progress in reducing the growth of Senate committees. The resolution before us authorizes $7.6 million less for this year than the 1994 authorization, and that is a step in the right direction. Most of the committee budgets were reduced by 15 percent plus a 2- percent COLA for salaries. Of particular significance are the cuts in the budgets for the three largest committees: The Committees on Governmental Affairs, the Judiciary, and Labor and Human Resources. The Rules Committee should be commended for reducing the budgets of Governmental Affairs and Judiciary by 1.5 percent above the 15-percent cut received by other committees. The chairwoman of the Labor Committee also deserves enormous praise for submitting a budget that cuts expenses by a whopping 25 percent. During the 102d and 103d Congresses I offered amendments to reduce overstaffing on these three committees. In 1991, I proposed capping the number of available committee staff positions at 1990 levels. The amendment I proposed in the 103d Congress would have used the Finance Committee, with its substantial workload, as a benchmark. Each committee's funding level for 1993 would have been the lesser of either 95 percent of the 1992 funding level, or 95 percent of the Finance Committee's funding level--except for the Appropriations Committee, which would be funded at 95 percent of its 1992 level. Since the beginning of the committee system as we know it today, we have seen a rapid growth in the size of committee staffs. Some of that growth is understandable, but some is not. In 1950, there were 300 committee staff positions. By 1970, that number had more than doubled to 635. It had nearly doubled again to 1,212 by 1990. In 1992, there were 1,257 committee staff positions. In 1993 some progress was made and the number of committee staff positions for which funding was made available went down to 1,196. Nevertheless, the number of staff positions for the three big committees remained at well over 100 for each--Governmental Affairs at 120, Judiciary at 128, and Labor at 127. This year, there are 947 authorized staff positions, and only one committee has more than 100 authorized positions. I am very pleased to support this resolution.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, let me comment very briefly on the Sense- of-the-Senate resolution offered by Senator Bradley and me. The resolution is, of course, not binding to the States. The last thing we want to do is attach a mandate to an unfunded mandates reform bill. Instead, we say plainly here that the States should given full consideration to mandates they might pass onto their cities and towns. That is all. I mentioned last week on the floor how ironic it is that Governors have asked us to provide relief in this area--while they themselves frequently impose unfunded mandates on their counties, cities, and towns. As we know, S. 1 introduces a clear mechanism for accountability at the Federal level. It would be inappropriate and unconstitutional for the Congress to install these same restrictions at the State level--yet--the theme underlying S. 1 of increased accountability for mandates seems applicable. Although my plan is to support S. 1, I have concerns about the lack of information in certain areas. for instance, do we know how many of the mandates imposed upon cities and towns actually originate from the Federal Government? To my knowledge, there is no data base or tracking system to make this important distinction. However, we have clear evidence that State-issued unfunded mandates exist. Mr. President, many States have exercised their authority to adopt laws which are more stringent than what the Federal Government requires. For example, my own State of Rhode Island requires every city and town to have an adult monitor on every school bus that carries children in the fourth grade and below. Did the Federal Government issue this mandate? No. Does the State provide the funds for this? No. The cities and towns must find the money in their own budgets. I will conclude by noting that the Governmental Affairs Committee report accompanying S. 1 states on page 3 that, ``* * * local officials decry unfunded State mandates as much as they do unfunded Federal ones.'' Since we cannot take direct action to remedy this, Mr. President, I would hope that the Senate could at least send the message that we must be held accountable at all levels. I am told that language similar to this was to be included in a managers amendment last year on S. 993. It is my view that the need for this resolution still exists and so I urge its adoption. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Thank you very much. Mr. President, first I want to congratulate the distinguished junior Senator from Idaho for the work he has done in connection with this unfunded mandates legislation. He took an idea that others have thought about and have shown concerns about, and he developed it into this piece of legislation. He is extremely knowledgeable about it. He has been able to explain it to most people's satisfaction. It is complex, there is no question about it. So I think Senator Kempthorne deserves a lot of credit for what he has done. Truly, this is a problem that exists out there, as the distinguished Senator from Minnesota has just remarked. There are these problems out there in the States. I might say in passing that the States sometimes do unfunded mandates on the towns and cities below them. I must say that it is a little ironic that the Governors are all in here telling us to pass this unfunded mandates. I was thinking now maybe we ought to add an amendment to this that no Governor would be entitled to the benefits of this legislation if he had any unfunded mandates on his cities and towns. But I think that would probably get everything a little too complex. So I will forego that. So, Mr. President, I just want to say that I will support this legislation and vote for it. I see there are some difficulties. I think the sponsors of the legislation themselves would recognize that one of the problems we are going to have is getting the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office in due time. As we all know, this is a free-flowing place. Up we pop with amendments. It is no secret that we say in the language as we send it forward: ``I send to the desk an unprinted amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.'' That means that it is an amendment that somebody has written on a piece of paper, as we can do. It does not have to be printed. It does not have to be circulated. But in the battle that goes on back and forth on legislation, we have amendments. I do not know just how we are going to work these Congressional Budget Office estimates. I suppose that if in doubt, one would ask for a waiver. That may be one of the ways to proceed. But let me also say that my support is for the bill as it is now, as the Senator from Idaho has presented it. If there are amendments that are adopted to the effect, for example, as one suggested amendment is, that the point of lose me, Mr. President, on this legislation because I just do not think we can conduct business like that. I know the Senator from Idaho is himself, as I understand it, dedicated to keeping this a clean bill, as one would say. I hope he is successful. Certainly, I would help him do that in resisting the amendments and trying to bring the bill forward at its conclusion as close as possible as it exists now. But I wanted to make it clear that while I support the legislation, I want to say that should there be these amendments, these changes to it of some substantial nature, I would not support it under those conditions. I thank the Chair. I see no one else prepared to speak. In that event, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senators Feinstein, Hutchison, Kohl, and Dorgan in introducing legislation to extend the Medicare Select Program permanently and to make it available in all 50 States. Based on legislation that I introduced in 1990, Medicare Select is a demonstration project operating in 15 States with more than 400,000 participants. Under this program, Medicare beneficiaries have the option to purchase Medicare supplemental insurance policies--often referred to as Medigap policies--through managed care networks. This program has been a huge success and admirably serves those beneficiaries lucky enough to participate. Recent data continues to show that Medicare beneficiaries who purchase Medicare Select products pay premiums 10 percent to 37 percent less expensive than traditional Medigap products. Moreover, consumer satisfaction with these products is extremely high. Of the top 15 Medigap products ranked by Consumer Reports magazine in its August 1994 issue, eight were Medicare Select products. Unfortunately, under current law, current Medicare Select carriers will have to halt enrollment in July 1995. Almost all the major health care reform plans introduced during the past session of Congress included provisions to expand the Medicare Select Program to all 50 States. While none of these health care reform efforts succeeded, my colleagues and I worked at the end of the last session to extend the demonstration program until July of this year, until we could introduce a bill to extend the program permanently and to expand it to all 50 States. As I indicated, the current demonstration program expires in July of this year--before we will be able to take any actions on health care reform. Therefore, we need to enact legislation that will allow the current successful program to become a permanent option for Medicare beneficiaries and to expand to all States. This bill will do just that, and I urge my colleagues to give it their support.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, during the last session of Congress, I was a cosponsor of the gift ban bill and was among a handful of Republicans who voted for cloture on the conference report. Nevertheless, I voted to table the gift ban amendment to the Congressional Accountability Act. Congress has been severely criticized for passing legislation that applies one set of rules to itself and a separate set of rules to the rest of the Nation. The Congressional Accountability Act changes that practice, once and for all. The House already has agreed to similar legislation and is expected to endorse the Senate version. Passage of the gift ban bill would delay final approval of this important measure. Furthermore, passage of a ban on gifts from lobbyists prior to consideration and passage of strict lobbying disclosure requirements is, in my view, shortsighted. The majority leader clearly stated his intention to address the entire issue of how lobbyists interact with Members of Congress and their staffs. Banning gifts from lobbyists should be addressed in that context. To ban gifts from lobbyists under our present inadequate system of registering lobbyists could act as a disincentive to proper registration.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Chair of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Nancy Kassebaum, in introducing the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act. I wish to commend the Senator from Kansas for her leadership in advancing this important initiative, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would save $3.3 billion over 5 years. The Davis-Bacon Act requires that minimum wage rates paid on all federally-financed construction projects valued at more than $2,000 be based upon ``prevailing'' rates established by the Department of Labor. The time has come to do away with this antiquated Depression-era statute. The act significantly increases the cost of Federal construction, restricts competition, and discourages the hiring of women, minorities, dislocated workers, and job trainees. Through my tenure on the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have become all too familiar with the negative toll this statute exacts on our Federal highway program. Of the $3 billion per year in added federal construction costs resulting from the Davis-Bacon Act, $300 to $500 million comes from the Federal highway program. So-called ``little'' Davis-Bacon laws, which exist in some 37 States and the District of Columbia, exact a further toll on Federal highway funds of approximately $60 million per year. The inflationary impact of Davis-Bacon means the funds we have dedicated to modernizing our critical highway infrastructure are building fewer roads, replacing fewer deficient bridges and reducing overall productivity. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that the act inflates highway construction wages by 8-10 percent, with increased administrative burdens on contractors and contracting agencies amounting to over $100 million annually. The motoring public, which pays into our Highway Trust Fund in the form of Federal fuel excise taxes, deserves competitive contracting to ensure the most prudent use of these critical resources. While there was a time when the David-Bacon Act helped to ensure fair wages, the sad truth today is that its primary purpose is to guarantee non- competitive wages to union contractors. Though the act is intended to help smaller contractors, including minority-owned firms, the Federal paperwork requirements to comply with Davis-Bacon are so daunting most elect not to seek such business. Instead, beneficiaries. Tragically, the restrictive requirements associated with the Davis-Bacon Act have had the effect of hurting women, minorities, trainees, and others who are most often hired by small and minority firms. For these reasons, I will press for the expeditious consideration and enactment of the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act over the coming months. Thank you.