Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that the Senate now stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me respond to the Senator from Arizona by saying that when we looked at the President's budget request for funding of the Agriculture Research Service activities, we, too, thought that the request was too high. Our careful evaluation of the needs for research done by the Agriculture Research Service resulted in our reducing the amount available for this activity by $7 million. So the proposal that is before the Senate is $7 million less than requested by the administration. Let me also point out one other thing. I noticed the Senator's amendment would cut $18 million from the Senate-recommended figure, $18 million from what the Senate recommended. We are already $7 million below the President's request. He does that, he says, to bring our number to the point where we would agree with the House on the level of funding for these activities. The House number is $702 million in total. The bad part is, if you look at the House numbers individually in all the items in the bill that the House says should be funded, it adds up to $710 million more or less. Draw the bottom line and put $702 million. He wants us to join that hocus-pocus and suggest we want individual projects funded up and down the line in their bill, and if you add them all up it is $710 million, round numbers, but they draw the bottom line and put $702. I will not submit a bill to the floor of this Senate and do that and say I am cutting spending more than we really are recommending when you look at the individual items. What they are forcing the Department of Agriculture to do, if the Senate goes along with that, we are misrepresenting to the general public, we are misrepresenting to the Department of Agriculture, what our recommendation is. We are forcing the Department to pick out $7 million in cuts and impose them somewhere, and disavowing any connection with it. We are disavowing paternity with a $7 million cut. If we are going to impose the cut to $702 million, identify where the cuts are going to be. If you are going to cut the Arkansas Research Program that the Department of Agriculture runs, you have to spell it out. If you are going to cut an Arizona cotton research activity that is a substantial investment of dollars in a new facility, say it. Say you are cutting western cotton research, and point out it is done in Arizona. Just to simply say we are spending more than we need but not say how, where, when, or to what extent, that is not right. Now, after the Senator completed his proposal where he makes this $18 million cut, he then talked about other parts of the bill he found obnoxious that do not have anything to do with Agricultural Research Service funding. If there are programs that should not be funded, I suggest we ought to spell it out. Amendments ought to target those projects. If that is what the complaint is, offer an amendment that does that. But to offer an across-the-board cut which if we passed would force the Department to make the decisions, we would not have any responsibility for doing that. That is irresponsibility. That is not accountability. I sympathize with the Senator's proposal that we make sure the dollars that are invested in research are, No. 1, needed, serve some public interest, are reviewed carefully. I can assure the Senate and I can assure the Senator from Arizona that will be undertaken here. He did specifically mention shrimp research for shrimp farming operations and how they were money-making enterprises and they did not need the research dollars. I convened a hearing just on that issue last year to determine what some of the problems were in aquaculture in fresh water, some salt water shrimp and other aquaculture activities. I found out there was an epidemic of exotic viruses that have attacked the shrimp in those operations and we were, in exchange, importing huge quantities of shrimp from China and other foreign sources because we could not meet the supplies needed here for wholesome, safe shrimp and other seafood. This was a growing industry. It was one that had a lot of promise but it was about to be wiped out. These funds that are made available are made available on condition that the industry come up with its own money to help match the dollars that are put up by the Government to get to the bottom of this problem, and it is a problem. Here is the hearing. This is a hearing record. This is not something the industry just came in and tried to push over on us. I am convinced the dollars that are made available for that activity are needed. The purpose, to provide high health and genetically improved stocks, to control disease agents, to enhance environmental protection, and to develop animal husbandry methods. All of this is needed if we are going to save this industry from a doom, a doom that will cause us to have to rely on foreign sources of these products. We already do. But we will be completely reliant on them if we are not careful, if we let this virus problem spread, if do not figure out how to stop it. That is needed. I will stand behind it. The record supports the need. I hope the Senate will reject the amendment. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask that it be reported.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, what is the business now before the Senate?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, earlier this month, the Medicare trustees released their 1996 annual report on the fiscal solvency of the Medicare trust fund. The bottom line is that the Medicare trust fund is going broke. And it is going broke sooner that we had been told. Last year's report revealed Medicare's deteriorating financial condition, but it was optimistic compared to the report released earlier this month. This month's report predicted the program will be bankrupt just 5 years from now--possibly running out of money as early as calendar year 2000. This means by that time, there will be no funds available to pay for the hospital care for our Nation's senior citizens. Last year, Congress passed and sent to the President a balanced set of reforms which would have kept Medicare solvent through the next generation while still increasing spending per beneficiary from $4,800 per year to more than $7,100 per year. It also offered seniors more choices and included incentives to combat fraud and abuse. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed the Medicare Preservation Act, which was included as a part of the Balanced Budget Act. Because I am tired of the partisan conflict on this issue, I am introducing the Medicare Emergency Protection Act of 1996, which incorporates the President's Medicare cuts. If the President will not approve our Republican proposal for reform of the Medicare program, I suggest we pass the President's bill. We cannot allow partisan bickering and political grandstanding to prevent the resolution of this crisis. The American people are fed up with this kind of politics with the gridlock on this issue. It is like Nero playing his fiddle while Rome burned. I am fed up with this stalemate too. I suggest we adopt the short- term changes recommended by the President which cut the costs of the program and create the commission to recommend the longterm changes to save Medicare. My bill has two parts. The first part incorporates the President's proposed cuts in Medicare. But it excludes his accounting gimmick which would transfer the costs of home health care from the Hospital Insurance Program to the Supplemental Medical Insurance Program. While this transfer would extend the technical solvency of the trust fund, it would shift billions of dollars in additional costs to the general taxpayer. The second part of this legislation creates a commission similar to the National Commission on Social Security Reform. As some of my colleagues will recall, that Commission was established by President Reagan and the Congress in 1981. The Commission suggested reforms which will maintain the fiscal solvency of the Social Security trust fund until sometime after the year 2025. Last year, Majority Leader Dole and Speaker Gingrich proposed a similar commission to address the fiscal insolvency of the Medicare trust fund. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration rejected that proposal. However, in their recent report, the Medicare trustees, which include three members of President Clinton's Cabinet, themselves proposed the establishment of a commission. Now, there is obvious bipartisan support for this proposal. The National Commission on Medicare Reform will have 1 year to consider options for reform to secure the long-term fiscal solvency of the Medicare trust fund. Once the members of the Commission have settled on a set of reforms, the President will review the proposal. If he approved it, he will submit the proposal to the Congress. Under expedited procedures, the House of Representatives and the Senate will consider it and, without amendment, vote up or down to approve or reject the reforms. I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation. Each day that passes makes the eventual solutions more difficult to achieve. I ask unanimous consent that copies of the statement I made on this subject in the Senate on June 6 and 7 be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, earlier this month, the Medicare trustees released their 1996 annual report on the fiscal solvency of the Medicare trust fund. The bottom line is that the Medicare trust fund is going broke. And it is going broke sooner that we had been told. Last year's report revealed Medicare's deteriorating financial condition, but it was optimistic compared to the report released earlier this month. This month's report predicted the program will be bankrupt just 5 years from now--possibly running out of money as early as calendar year 2000. This means by that time, there will be no funds available to pay for the hospital care for our Nation's senior citizens. Last year, Congress passed and sent to the President a balanced set of reforms which would have kept Medicare solvent through the next generation while still increasing spending per beneficiary from $4,800 per year to more than $7,100 per year. It also offered seniors more choices and included incentives to combat fraud and abuse. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed the Medicare Preservation Act, which was included as a part of the Balanced Budget Act. Because I am tired of the partisan conflict on this issue, I am introducing the Medicare Emergency Protection Act of 1996, which incorporates the President's Medicare cuts. If the President will not approve our Republican proposal for reform of the Medicare program, I suggest we pass the President's bill. We cannot allow partisan bickering and political grandstanding to prevent the resolution of this crisis. The American people are fed up with this kind of politics with the gridlock on this issue. It is like Nero playing his fiddle while Rome burned. I am fed up with this stalemate too. I suggest we adopt the short- term changes recommended by the President which cut the costs of the program and create the commission to recommend the longterm changes to save Medicare. My bill has two parts. The first part incorporates the President's proposed cuts in Medicare. But it excludes his accounting gimmick which would transfer the costs of home health care from the Hospital Insurance Program to the Supplemental Medical Insurance Program. While this transfer would extend the technical solvency of the trust fund, it would shift billions of dollars in additional costs to the general taxpayer. The second part of this legislation creates a commission similar to the National Commission on Social Security Reform. As some of my colleagues will recall, that Commission was established by President Reagan and the Congress in 1981. The Commission suggested reforms which will maintain the fiscal solvency of the Social Security trust fund until sometime after the year 2025. Last year, Majority Leader Dole and Speaker Gingrich proposed a similar commission to address the fiscal insolvency of the Medicare trust fund. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration rejected that proposal. However, in their recent report, the Medicare trustees, which include three members of President Clinton's Cabinet, themselves proposed the establishment of a commission. Now, there is obvious bipartisan support for this proposal. The National Commission on Medicare Reform will have 1 year to consider options for reform to secure the long-term fiscal solvency of the Medicare trust fund. Once the members of the Commission have settled on a set of reforms, the President will review the proposal. If he approved it, he will submit the proposal to the Congress. Under expedited procedures, the House of Representatives and the Senate will consider it and, without amendment, vote up or down to approve or reject the reforms. I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation. Each day that passes makes the eventual solutions more difficult to achieve. I ask unanimous consent that copies of the statement I made on this subject in the Senate on June 6 and 7 be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my State colleague and other Senators in cosponsoring this resolution condemning recent church burnings and urging that all appropriate Federal authority be used to investigate these incidents and bring to justice those who are responsible for them. I suggest, in addition to passing this bipartisan leadership resolution, that we hold at the desk the bill that will be passed by the House and call it up for passage as soon as possible, without amendment, and send it to the President for his signature. Taking this action should serve notice on all concerned that this kind of conduct will not be tolerated in our society, and those who engage in this terrorism will be caught and they will be punished.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to rise on the floor of the Senate today to congratulate my good friend and State colleague, Trent Lott, upon his election as the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. You have to go back to 1937 to find an instance of a Mississippi Senator being so close to the powerful position that my friend now occupies. Senator Pat Harrison of Dove Port, MS, first was elected to Congress to represent the gulf coast district in Congress, and so was Trent Lott some many years later, 1972. Senator Harrison came to the Senate after serving several terms in the House and rose to become chairman of the Finance Committee here in the Senate, and he lost by one vote in a race to be the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. Incidentally, the Senator who won that election was Alben Barkley of Kentucky. After that, he became President pro tempore of the Senate. I mention this to put in context what has happened today. For the first time in history, a Mississippian has been elected majority leader of the U.S. Senate. I feel very honored and pleased that I have had the pleasure and the privilege of serving with Trent Lott for almost 24 years in Congress, first in the House and now in the Senate. I want to commit to him my wholehearted support and my cooperation in helping make his service as majority leader of the Senate the most successful ever for any Senator. We have been very fortunate in our State in having some outstanding representation, even though none had ever been chosen to serve as majority leader. As a matter of fact, this desk here has written in the drawer the names of some of those distinguished Senators, beginning with Jefferson Davis, who resigned his seat in the Senate from this desk when Mississippi seceded from the Union. It also contains the signatures of Pat Harrison, whom I mentioned, and John Sharp Williams, who was the minority whip in the House before being elected to the Senate. So Trent Lott joins a list of very distinguished leaders of both Houses in representing our State in this very important capacity. We know that the days ahead are going to be difficult. And I know all of the Members on our side are going to work very closely together. I trust the Members on the other side will, too, to help move the business of the Senate along. There are some who are predicting gridlock, confrontation, mean- spirited, election-year posturing. Well, let us not have it happen. I challenge the Senate--and I know others feel this way, too--that we can achieve results that help solve problems for the American people in the time we have ahead of us this year. We can do it under the able, energetic, and very experienced leadership that Trent Lott brings to the job of majority leader. So I appreciate very much having the opportunity of being in the same contest with him. Frankly, I learned a lot. I had never run against Trent Lott for anything before. In the conference he spoke in a very precise, clear way. We were asked in the news conference about the election. I mentioned that I started off in this campaign with a small base of support, and during the campaign it got smaller. That was because of the proven leadership ability of Trent Lott and his obviously excellent qualifications for this job. I am confident that he will be a great success as majority leader. And I am honored to work with him. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I rise to join all of those in the Senate today to wish Godspeed to our distinguished majority leader and colleague, Bob Dole, as he departs the Senate and embarks upon his campaign for the Presidency of the United States. I do not know of any other event that is more important to all of us or to the country this year than his election as President. I am really glad in one sense to see him concentrate his full energies and attention on that objective. When I think about Bob Dole's leaving the Senate, I think about when I came to the Senate he was already established as one of the true legislative leaders of the Senate, although he occupied no elected position of leadership in the Senate. It was my good fortune to serve on two committees with him as a freshman Member of this body--the Agriculture Committee and the Judiciary Committee. He was not intending to serve on the Judiciary Committee that year either, but he was drafted to serve. We did not have enough Members to fill out the ranks on the Republican side. Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts just assumed the chairmanship of that committee. It was a very highly visible committee. I recall Senator Dole coming on the committee. Of course, he had been a lawyer, a county attorney in Kansas. He brought to that committee good judgment and experience on a number of issues. I can recall what I would think would be referred to as an obscure bill that year that the committee worked on, which was bankruptcy reform. After a lot of hearings, a lot of effort to resolve issues and to get a bill reported out, it was Senator Dole who, when it appeared there was not going to be any action on that issue, came up with a proposal that turned out to be the centerpiece of bankruptcy reform. It was that way on the Agriculture Committee. We would be locked in tough debate, arguments, differences of views based on regional considerations, sometimes party differences. The chairman from Georgia, Senator Talmadge, was trying to get everybody together. Time after time after time it was Bob Dole who ended up being the force and the catalyst that brought the committee to a point where it agreed and reported out legislation. That legislation would ultimately become law. Senator Dole, as a member of the Finance Committee--I did not have the good fortune to be a member there--but as chairman of that committee, I can recall his handling legislation on the floor of the Senate into the late hours of the evening with the patience and the calm determination to see the bill through, dealing with the competing interests, the offering of amendments, Democrats and Republicans alike, getting a fair hearing on their proposals of what should be in the bill and what should not be in the bill. And finally, after sometimes days, bringing that bill to a point where it would pass the Senate and then ultimately be enacted into law. A legislative leader, in the truest sense of the word, on a wide range of issues, some issues that other Senators did not want to work on, like in the Agriculture Committee, the nutrition issues, working out the difficulties in determining eligibility for food stamps, for School Lunch Program participation, how much would the Federal Government contribute, how much would State and local governments contribute, how much would individuals have to pay for these benefits, and on and on, the minutia, the tough, hard decisions. He was there to help make those decisions and to help shape a consensus of support for legislation on those issues when others could not do it, did not bring the skill and the determination and the capacity to do it that Bob Dole brought to the challenge. It was no wonder, when Howard Baker left the Senate in 1984, following the elections that year, the Senate turned to Bob Dole and elected him leader. He has proven himself over and over again to be a confident, fair, courageous, decisive leader, driven by character, integrity, and the notion of what is good for the public interest, not just what is good for the party interest or partisan consideration, but the general interests that serve the people of our great country. It is with that kind of leadership that we have come to appreciate the genius of Bob Dole and the outstanding way in which he has discharged the responsibilities of leader. We are going to have a tough job. I know that some people are talking about the succession, and who is going to replace Bob Dole. The fact is that nobody is going to replace Bob Dole. Nobody has the capacity to do all the things that he has done in the U.S. Senate. It has really been an honor--a great honor--and a wonderful opportunity to have had the privilege of serving on some of the committees he has served on, some he has chaired, and to be a part of this Senate that has been led by Bob Dole, the Senator from Kansas. So we wish him all the best and know that he will enjoy many more successes and many more triumphs in the years ahead. We are confident of that, and we bid him a fond farewell. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, first, I want to commend the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. Cover- dell], and those who spoke this morning on the subject of a balanced budget amendment and the unfortunate consequences of our failure to deal with the problem of the ever-increasing deficits. We also had a few of those Senators mention, as an aside, the problem with the Medicare trust fund. I wanted to remind Senators that we had a hearing yesterday in the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the Department of Health and Human Services, and Secretary Donna Shalala came before the committee to present the President's proposed budget for that Department for the next fiscal year. She serves, along with others in the administration, on this panel of trustees, whose responsibility it is to monitor and help keep Congress and the administration informed about the integrity of the trust fund, and supports the Medicare Program. The trustees, earlier this week, talked about the fact that the worst case scenario for future deficits in that program had been exceeded, and that rather than having the program go bankrupt, be hopelessly insolvent by the year 2002, it was going to be bankrupt earlier. By the year 2000, it would be out of balance by over $30 billion, and the following year, it would be out of balance and in deficit at the figure of $100 billion. The consequences of this report have to wake up everybody to the realization that unless Congress and the administration quit playing politics with this issue, it is going to be insolvent. This program is going to be in jeopardy, and benefits are going to be in jeopardy as well. I think the time has come for us to say, OK, the Republican Congress passed a balanced budget act last year. It included in that suggested reforms in the Medicare Program that would have put it in balance, would have kept it solvent, would have made some needed changes in the program to give older citizens more choices, more protection, so that their medical expenses and benefits could continue to be paid through this program. The President vetoed the bill. He rejected the balanced budget act. So we started over again. This year, the Budget Committee is wrestling with the problem of reconciling budget resolutions, which contain projected expenditures under this program, as well as all other Federal programs, with an effort to continue to build toward a balanced budget plan as soon as possible. Their projection is the year 2002. What I am going to suggest is that, in this politically charged environment of Presidential politics and campaigns for House and Senate seats underway--and we have to admit it--it is unlikely that this administration is going to change its mind and embrace the Republican proposals. And so we have to acknowledge that. The President, at the same time, has made a counteroffer, as I understand it, and has proposed some changes in the Medicare Program, which would achieve savings of $116 billion over the same period of time. The Republican proposals would have achieved savings of almost $170 billion. Let us say, OK, Mr. President, have it your way for the short term. Let us introduce the President's proposed changes in the Medicare Program. Let us accept his proposals for changes and cuts in the Medicare Program and enact them next week, or the week following. If the reconciliation bill from the Budget Committee's resolution is vetoed by the President or not supported by the Democrats in that area of the budget, let us isolate the Medicare Program changes and enact some changes. I suggest, let us enact the President's proposed changes and cuts in the program and, at the same time, establish a commission--which the President has recommended, the trustees have recommended in their report, including Secretary Shalala, Secretary Reich, Secretary Rubin, and others, who serve on that trustee panel--to recommend long-term changes in the Medicare Program that would ensure its solvency and protect the benefits for the older citizens in our society over the long term. I do not see anything wrong with that. As a matter of fact, I have been suggesting that that be considered as an alternative. If Congress and the President cannot agree on what changes ought to be made, get a commission together, much like the Base Closure Commission, or the Social Security Commission, which was formed in 1983 and chaired by Alan Greenspan. It made recommendations to save the Social Security trust fund from bankruptcy, and Congress and the President agreed at that time to accept the recommendation of that commission and implement it. That ought to be a part of this legislation--that we establish that commission, agree to implement its recommendations, and have a vote on it. If you do not want to implement them, vote no; be against everything. But we have to come to terms with the reality of the situation. The longer we wait, the harder the solution is going to be and the more sacrifices that are going to have to be made by everybody--the taxpayers. If we do not make these changes, do you know what is going to happen? Pretty soon, you are going to see the taxes on the employers and employees to fund this program being increased--and by substantial sums. Now, the older population is getting older and, thank goodness, medical science is wonderful and it is giving us all opportunities for longer lives. But coming with that, too, are added expenses, as you get older, for medical care. Our senior citizens confront the reality every day of this terrible fear, and that is that they will not have the funds, they will not have access to the care they need to enjoy the longevity that they now have, compliments of medical science, good nutrition, and the advances that we have made for good health in our society. So I say that it is time to stop the partisan politics. Let us quit throwing rocks at each other across the aisle, blaming each other for not getting anything done. I am prepared to say, as a Member of the Republican leadership in the Senate, OK, Mr. President, let us enact your proposal. I am going to introduce a bill next week, and I hope there will be Senators on both sides of the aisle who will say, OK, let us go along with this suggestion as an alternative to what we have been getting. And what we have been getting is nothing--gridlock, confrontation, yelling at each other, people getting red in the face, and nothing getting done. I think the American people are fed up with that kind of politics, fed up with that kind of Government. I am fed up with it. It is time to change. We ought to do it now--before it is too late. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this afternoon, we had an interesting hearing in the subcommittee for appropriations which is chaired by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter]. The witness was the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Shalala. We were examining the budget request being submitted by the administration for appropriations to operate that Department of the Government for the next fiscal year that begins October 1. Secretary Shalala happens to be in another capacity a trustee of this group who have the responsibility of monitoring the trust fund that supports the benefits paid out under the Medicare Program. Since that group of trustees had just made their report public yesterday at the news conference which we all read and heard about, that subject came up. It occurred to me, since there was before the general public a suggestion by the President that he had made recommendations that were almost identical with the Republican suggestion about how to protect the benefits of this Medicare Program and how to deal with this impending insolvency of that fund, it occurs to me that we are going to see more of the same kind of political shenanigans from now until the end of this year, with nothing being done unless somebody is ready to say, ``OK, we will go along with your proposal.'' The President can say that to the Congress, or we can say that to the President. I am prepared at this point to suggest, in a serious way, and said this to Secretary Shalala at the hearing, the Congress accept the President's suggestions. We can pass the suggested changes for short-term relief of pressure on that fund, but at the same time appoint a commission which is also called for by the President and the trustees in their report to propose long-term changes, changes to affect the long-term insolvency problems of the trust fund, and that the Congress, through its leaders and the President himself, agree to implement the recommendations of that commission for long-term changes. It seems to me that is one way to resolve this as a part of this argument over whether Republicans are trying to cut taxes, to impose changes on Medicare beneficiaries as a part of a budget balancing act. We already, in the Congress, submitted to the President proposals to rescue the Medicare Program. That was a part of the Balanced Budget Act which the President vetoed. He has already rejected what Congress has suggested. After weeks and weeks of negotiations with leaders of the Congress and the President at the White House, all we got out of it were some photo ops, some political posturing, partisan sniping. We have had enough of that. The American people are fed up with that kind of politics. That is not the way to run the Government. I am tired of it. I have recommended and seriously urge this Congress to accept the recommendation of the President--not the one, of course, that says that home health care ought to be paid for out of the general Treasury; I am talking about changes that will reduce the costs of the program in a way that saves the program from insolvency--they recommended last year that we had to act before the year 2002, that we were going to see an insolvency, there would be a bankrupted fund, in effect. Now, the report this year is worse than that. The year before it was going insolvent. Under the last report, it is going to lose $33 billion, and the following year $100 billion. Contrary to what the junior Senator from West Virginia said, that this is a Republican- manufactured crisis, that is an outrageous comment. That is totally outrageous. These trustees are Democrats by and large. Secretary Rubin said it, Secretary Shalala said it is going to be insolvent, Secretary Reich said it would be insolvent, the head of the Social Security Administration was standing there and agreed with them. That is not a group of Republicans. The Republicans are not manufacturing a crisis. The crisis is real. The crisis is now. It is irresponsible for us to continue to sit here and listen to this kind of arguing made by Senators on the other side that this is some kind of effort by Republicans to frighten older people. I am frightened. I am not an eligible beneficiary yet. We have to act. I want to commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for his leadership in an effort to get the Secretary to agree to recommendations to the administration, that they take a stand, put their recommendations in the form of legislation, send it to the Hill, and see if we can pass it.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona for yielding time to me. The most often heard criticisms of this legislation that have come to my attention and that I have read in the op-ed pieces and the newspapers consist generally of three main arguments: First, the system costs too much; second, we will violate the ABM Treaty; third, this is not the real threat we are dealing with right now, that it is more of a terrorism threat, that people could bring a nuclear weapon in a suitcase and put it anywhere in the United States, and that this is what we have to concentrate our attention on. Let me take those arguments and just say that on the basis of the facts--not the rhetoric, not the eye wash, not the double-talk, but the facts--before our Committee on Defense Appropriations, we have heard of a system that, using a sea-based system, we can deploy a missile defense system with existing ships, cruisers, that are now in the inventory of the U.S. Navy and at sea around the world that have a firing system that is capable of being used for launching interceptors. This can be deployed over a 5-year period at a cost of between $2 and $3 billion. Think about that. That is within the budget request being submitted by the President of the United States for missile defense. Other testimony came from the Air Force. The highest ranking officers of the Air Force described before our committee a ground-based system, the technology for which already exists and is proven to be very promising in this area. The cost? $2 to $2.5 billion. Now, come on. There was testimony from the Army, the highest ranking officials in the Army, about a ground-based system for missile defense. One estimate was from $5 to $7 billion over a period of years to deploy this system. The reason those costs are so low is because we have already invested substantial sums of money. Those investments are not wasted if we will go ahead and deploy a system in an orderly way, using the technology that is there. Second, opponents of national missile defense say we will violate the ABM Treaty. The Defend America Act, which I am cosponsoring, along with a number of other Senators, specifically provides that the President pursue high-level discussions with the Russian federation to achieve an agreement to amend the ABM Treaty to allow deployment of the National Missile Defense System being developed for deployment under section 4. It does not say violate the treaty. It suggests that if there is a need to amend the treaty to keep from violating it, the President should work to accomplish that objective. We do not know what the Russians would say to that kind of proposal, but we ought to at least explore it. But to say that the Defend America Act violates the ABM Treaty is just not true. Third, opponents of national missile defense say that the kind of threat that we are confronting right now isn't that serious. Well, it is. There are some 20 countries, maybe more, who either have or are in the process of acquiring missile technology capable of delivering lethal warheads, nuclear, biological, and other types of lethal warheads over long distances that could create mass destruction, putting at risk, right now, our troops in South Korea, those deployed in other regions of the world. Our interests everywhere are threatened. Now, of course, we are worried about terrorism. That is why we passed the antiterrorism bill the other day. Of course, we are worried about doing enough in terms of surveillance and keeping up with what is going on and what kind of threats exist against the United States and its citizens. That is why we have intelligence-gathering agencies. That is why we are urging that the President submit a request for more funds for these things rather than less. So we are fighting that battle. We are dealing with that threat. To use as an excuse that we should not have a missile defense system because there are other threats that may be more obvious, does not argue, in any way, against the passage of this bill. That is the point. I am tired of hearing these same old arguments, dredged up, reused and rephrased, in the New York Times editorial page and by others contributing their information through that source to this debate. I think they are wrong. They are certainly not accurate.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering H.R. 2066, a bill that is virtually the same as S. 1613, which I introduced in the Senate earlier this year. The purpose of this legislation is to amend the National School Lunch Act to provide greater flexibility to schools to meet the dietary guidelines for Americans contained in Public Law 103-448, the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994. This bill does not postpone or reduce in any way the statutory requirement that schools have to meet these dietary guidelines. The National School Lunch Program currently operates in over 92,000 schools and serves approximately 26 million children each day. In my State of Mississippi approximately 7 out of 10 children participate in the School Lunch Program. The Secretary should take measures to ensure accountability, but should ensure those measures do not reduce the flexibility in this bill. It is not the intent of this bill for the Secretary to require school food authorities to provide detailed information about recipes, menus, nutrients, or nutrient analyses in order to receive approval to use a menu-planning method other than the three prescribed by USDA. Limitations on staff time and resources could make it extremely difficult for many school food authorities to provide such information. Schools that desire to use the 1994-95 food-based meal policies are entitled to do so under this legislation without preapproval. This legislation will also allow schools to consider local and regional preferences when preparing meals. This bill has received wide support from school representatives at both the local and national level and from the administration. Earlier this week the other body passed this bill by unanimous consent. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I, too, want to join my Senate colleagues in expressing how profoundly saddened we are about the death of Adm. Mike Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations. He was truly one of the most impressive figures who has ever been selected to serve as Chief of Naval Operations. He rose from the ranks of the enlisted personnel to become an officer, and not only that, but the highest-ranking officer in the U.S. Navy. He brought to that job an enthusiasm for the work, a love for the Navy, and a respect for everyone in the Navy that was unparalleled. I recall very clearly a visit that I had the good fortune to make with him to the Meridian Naval Air Station in Meridian, MS. He gone down to our State and was visiting other States in the South looking at naval installations. He visited the Pascagoula base on the gulf coast. I was with him in Meridian when, after a tour of the naval air station, he wanted an opportunity to meet with everybody on the air station. So a meeting was called and everyone was invited. All hands were invited to come see the Chief of Naval Operations in the gymnasium there on the base. He talked to everyone. He had a hand-held mike. He walked out in the middle of the gymnasium, as people were seated in the stands all around. After his remarks, without any notes at all, he took questions and he was asked questions about everything from pay allowance issues, to housing, to the status of some repair contracts on Navy fighter aircraft, to the status of trainers, and how long they would remain in service. He knew something about everything that he was asked that day, and he handled the questions in a way that showed a genuine respect for each person who asked the question, whether it was an officer, a pilot of an airplane, or an enlisted personnel. He left that place that day with everyone really endeared to him and totally impressed with him as a person and proud to be in the U.S. Navy with his being the highest ranking officer in that Navy. So it is with deep regret and sadness that we heard today the tragic news of his death. Our condolences go out to his family and to all of those who worked closely with him, because they have to be deeply, deeply saddened by this terrible event. But his legacy will be long remembered and appreciated as an enduring gift of unselfish public service by a person who was a true patriot. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to join my good friend and State colleague, and the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, in saying how sincerely and deeply we respect the decision that Bob Dole has made and announced today, that he will resign his seat in the U.S. Senate to seek the Presidency of the United States. I think this truly does signal the beginning of the race for the Presidency. Obviously, as majority leader of the Senate, Bob Dole has had an enormous responsibility for the schedule of the Senate, for doing all the things that are required of a leader in the Senate to do. He has done them all with great skill and in a way that has reflected an enormous amount of credit on the U.S. Senate. I am confident the decision to resign did not come easy to him. We have all had an opportunity to be with him today in meetings, first a small group in the leadership, then in the Republican conference, and then to hear his public statement that he made in the Hart Senate Office Building. Throughout all of those conversations it became obvious to us what a difficult decision it had to be. But I think it also shows the willingness of Bob Dole to do what he has been selected to do and that is to be a candidate for President of the United States. His party has, in effect, nominated him as our candidate, and he has said, ``You have my full commitment. All of my energy, all of my effort, without distractions, no more ambushes here in the U.S. Senate from our friends on the other side of the aisle, or from wherever--all of my energies and my commitment will be directed to achieving success and winning the election campaign.'' And I predict that he is going to win this election campaign. We are going to miss him very much as our leader. He has been a true friend to so many of us, and certainly to me, during the time that I have had the honor of working with him here in the Senate, and even before. I never will forget when he came to Mississippi as a new Member of the Senate to defend those who were in charge of disaster benefits after Hurricane Camille had struck our gulf coast in 1969. There were some in the Senate who were prospective candidates for President who were on the other side of the aisle who chaired the committees. They came down to investigate how our State was disbursing disaster benefits and suggested, with a lot of national attention, that we were discriminating in our State against some of our citizens in that process. And it really was blatant posturing and trying to take advantage of an emotional situation, to curry favor in the national political arena. Bob Dole, young, new U.S. Senator, could see through that and he defended our elected Governor and the other officials in Mississippi who were working very hard to try to take care of a situation and deal with an enormous disaster. Huge money damages had been lost, a lot of personal suffering; lives had been lost. Bob Dole was willing to come down and stand up for what would have been a politically incorrect cause, defending the State of Mississippi. I remember that, and all of Mississippi remembers that. If they wonder why the numbers are like they are in the Presidential polls right now, you look at our State. He is way out in front and he is going to stay way out in front. But he has been a man of courage all of his life. We are familiar with his war record and what he suffered in World War II as a young man, and it just makes your heart ache to think about what he has been through and what he has overcome, to do with his life what he has done with his life and to really give it to the United States in public service--not to privately enrich himself in any way. He said, I am not a person where Congress is my life. America has been my life and it is my life. And it truly is his life. So it is with a great deal of respect and some heartfelt remorse, too, that he will be leaving the Senate, that I stand tonight to salute him as a great American, a great Senator, a great statesman. We are all very proud of Bob Dole.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. My question is whether or not the Senator is aware that today the leadership on the House side, the Speaker and the majority leader, sent a letter to the Republican leader here--a copy was given to the Democratic leader--which says as follows: In the next 2 weeks, the House will consider H.R. 2391 to allow low wage earners greater choice and flexibility in their work schedules. At that time, the Rules Committee will make in order an amendment to increase the minimum wage as well as other amendments to create jobs, expand worker training and education opportunities, and increase take-home pay for low wage workers. It complements our belief that a first job is the best training for life-long success in the world of work. We look forward to taking this measure to conference with the Senate and getting legislation to the President's desk. Is the Senator aware that that commitment has been made?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COCHRAN. I do not yield further, Mr. President. I am responding to the Senator's question. I will continue to respond. That summit meeting was held for a lot of purposes, to try to deal with a lot of issues that had been brought up in the Congress. The gasoline tax was not proposed by President Bush. I stand by what I said. President Clinton is the first President who suggested an addition to the gasoline tax that would not be used as a part of the highway trust fund. The fact is, the Republican leader in the Senate proposed that there be a repeal of this 1993 tax. He stated the reasons for it. It had almost unanimous support on this side of the aisle and, I think, support on the Democratic side as well. What happened next was, the Democrats offered an amendment that they wanted to have voted on before the gasoline tax repeal would be voted on, which was to increase the minimum wage. Now, it is not unusual to have some Senator offer an amendment on a completely different subject from the legislation that is pending before the Senate. It is one of the unique characteristics of the Senate that any Senator on either side of the aisle, at any time, can offer an amendment to any bill or any other amendment and discuss the merits of that proposal without interruption for as long as that Senator seeks to do so, or at least until 60 Senators vote to impose cloture and cut off debate. That is one of the unique features of this body. So I am not criticizing Senators who seek to use the rules to call to the attention of the Senate a matter of some urgency that needs the immediate consideration of the U.S. Congress. What is curious about that proposal and that amendment, though, was that, for 2 years, the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the administration. President Clinton came into office talking about giving a middle-class tax cut, talking about helping working people meet their goals and achieve their ambitions. Not once did a committee chaired by a Democratic Senator report out legislation to increase the minimum wage. Not once did a Democratic Senator offer an amendment to any bill to increase the minimum wage and call this to the attention of the Senate as some matter of urgency or something that would have merit and ought to be considered by the Congress. But it was advanced as a way to prevent a vote on the repeal of a tax, a temporary repeal of a gasoline tax. It was suggested that this was of such grave national urgency--the increase in the minimum wage--that it ought to be considered in advance of any other issue that could be brought before or considered or voted on by the U.S. Senate. Now, if that is not political posturing and grandstanding, I do not know what is. The fact is, for 2 long years, the Democrats--suggesting that they are the friends of the working man, they are going to do what they can to help make life better for those who work for a living-- never suggested through legislative proposals on this floor of this Senate that the minimum wage should be increased. But at a time when there was a matter brought up by the Republican leader, who is in charge of the schedule of the Senate, for the orderly consideration of legislation that there be a repeal of the gasoline tax that this President requested be imposed and which the Democrats had agreed to impose, there was this cry to, ``Wait, you cannot even vote on that in the Senate until you not only vote on, but commit yourself to and enact an increase in the minimum wage.'' There is a difference between a vote on an amendment, or debate of an amendment, and a vote on a motion to table that amendment or a vote on that amendment as amended. Any Senator has the right, as I said, under the rules--and we are not criticizing that right--to suggest a change in the law, to suggest a discussion on any subject at any time. The purpose for that is so that no one party, no one leader, no one region, no one faction can keep the Senate from considering an issue that is of importance to the national interest. No one can keep that from happening. No one is that powerful in the U.S. Senate. No party is that powerful, no majority so great that that is prohibited or frustrated. That is why the Senate is so unique. In the House of Representatives, for example, on the other hand, if a Member of that body wanted to offer an amendment or call to the attention of the House of Representatives some issue, it would have to be approved by the Rules Committee, first of all. The Rules Committee is dominated by members of one party. That is the way it is. The Rules Committee is an arm of the leadership of the House of Representatives. In my experience as a member of the other body, even if you are a Member of the legislative standing committee and would like to offer an amendment in that committee for consideration, you have very little chance of success, if the chairman of that committee is intent on defeating your amendment, in getting an amendment approved by that legislative committee and then finding its way to the floor as a part of a bigger bill. Now, I will admit that, in recent years and since I have been in the Senate, those rules have been modified somewhat, I am told. But I can recall when it was nigh unto impossible to bring an issue to the attention of the House of Representatives on the floor of the House-- except in a 1-minute speech, but I am talking about in a vehicle that could be voted on or enacted--without the permission of the higher-ups, the leadership, the people who control the House. Well, that is not the case in the Senate. We are all members of the Rules Committee here. Every Senator has a right to say what should be discussed or debated or considered by the U.S. Senate and can bring that issue up at any time there is a legislative issue on the floor of the Senate. So that is what the Democrats did and took advantage of for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Senate the minimum wage issue. But what needs to be remembered in all of this as we proceed now to consider the budget resolution instead of the taxpayer bill of rights, which has been on the schedule and scheduled for consideration by the leader, is that this is being used as a device to prevent the Senate from conducting the business that was proposed to be conducted by the Republican leader. He has sought to reach an agreement for consideration of a minimum wage amendment, and he has done that in a variety of different configurations--that there be three separate bills, that there be separate votes on amendments. There have been negotiations now for the last 2 weeks, and a strong effort has been made by the Democratic leader, I must say--and I agree that he has made every effort--to resolve some of these differences about how we proceed to consider the gas tax repeal, the minimum wage issue, and other labor related issues. The TEAM Act has been discussed as well. I might say that the Democratic leader suggested that now it is a part of the requirement that is being made for proceeding by the other side that the bill, as passed by the House containing the minimum wage increase, must be subject to review before any agreement for consideration of that issue can be made here in the Senate for the purpose of ensuring that whatever amendment is adopted here would not cause that bill, as passed by the House, to be vetoed by the President. So what is being sought is not an opportunity to debate an issue of some national urgency, not an effort to vote on an issue to put Senators on record, but to enact a change in the law. That sounds sort of like extortion, does it not? It sounds like extortion. It may not technically and legally be extortion but it sounds like it to me. Well, where we are now is, with the agreement of the Democrats, we are proceeding next to consider the budget resolution which we ought to do. And we all agree, Republicans and Democrats alike, that we ought to proceed to the consideration of the budget resolution because it is a matter of high priority. And in the orderly course of legislative process following the budget resolution we will be able to then take up bills to reconcile the law with the resolution, requiring reductions in spending, or changes in the law so that we can achieve the goals set forth in the budget resolution, and so that the appropriations bills can be enacted consistent with the limits that will be contained in the budget resolution. So as we begin the funding process for the departments of the Government for the fiscal year that begins on October 1, we will not see--I hope we will not see--what we saw last year. And that was a logjam of activities that frustrated the orderly funding and authorization of Government programs so that there were shutdowns, there were conflicts--some serious--between the House and Senate, between Senators and among Congressmen of both parties, and with the President that we had the frustrating experience of seeing the Government actually having to shut down because of the inability of the Congress and the President to agree on the levels of funding for various activities. So it is with the hope that we will avoid that result this year that we can agree quickly on a resolution on the budget, then move to the timely consideration of reconciliation bills and appropriations bills, and conclude this session of the Congress in a way that serves the collective interests of the American people. That is my hope. I did not say that ``serves'' the interest of a political party. I think there has been too much consideration in this body this year and last of what serves the interests of the political factions and not what proposals are really going to solve the problems this country faces. Some of us think the gasoline tax repeal would help solve a problem, that taxes are too high. Republicans are on record wanting to vote on that right now and to take up other tax reduction measures, too, as a part of the budget resolution, and we will get to that. But I am hopeful that the beginning of the debate on the budget resolution may signal a turn, a change in direction, at least in emphasis between political posturing and a good-faith committed effort toward achieving goals like reducing the deficit, tax reform, welfare reform, making Government more efficient, eliminating unnecessary and wasteful uses of tax dollars and all the rest that go into making for good Government and Government that is one that restores the confidence of the American people in our political system. That is important. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. I would like to respond by saying I do not think that was a suggestion by President Bush. I think at the time of that summit----

Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield for a question.