William Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that on Tuesday, July 25, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and the District of Columbia, will hold a hearing on S. 946, the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1995. subcommittee on parks, historic preservation and recreation

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, when reflecting upon the condition of American society as we move into the next century, there are few features of our social fabric that give rise to more concern than the violence that is plaguing our major urban centers and creeping into our suburbs and rural areas as well. By far, the most troubling aspect of our culture of violence is that young people, some not old enough to be called adolescents, are armed, dangerous, and committing heinous crimes at an increasing rate in each passing year. To make matters worse, as the number of young males aged 14 to 17 grows over the next 5 years, we can expect record levels of juvenile crime. One expert estimates that this demographic trend will produce ``a minimum of 30,000 more muggers, murders, and chronic offenders'' than we have now. There is no single Government policy or program that will solve our juvenile crime epidemic in the long or short run. Our approach must be comprehensive. First, punishment for violent crime must be swift and certain. We must dedicate adequate resources for police to catch criminals, for prosecutors to convict them, and for prisons to house them. Violent criminals must remain behind bars for a long time, as this is the only way to ensure that they do not victimize other innocent, law-abiding citizens. While adequate resources for police, prosecutors, and prisons are vitally necessary, we must acknowledge the limitations of the criminal justice system. For the most part, the criminal justice system is reactive--that is, it only engages after a crime has been committed. Since only a small percentage of crimes actually lead to arrests, and an even smaller percentage lead to conviction and punishment, the extent to which the criminal justice system can actually deter crime is limited. This is especially true with respect to youth from dysfunctional families living in communities riddled by gangs, guns, and drugs. I do not believe that we can deter these young people from crime merely by increasing criminal penalties and building more prisons. These youth turn to violence because it pervades their environment, because gang leaders are their role models, because their lives are filled with despair and hopelessness, and because life in prison is not such a bad alternative to their violent, drug-infested communities. Programming designed to prevent at-risk youth from turning to a life of crime is an important complement to our criminal justice system. Well-designed programs that give children constructive alternatives to the streets and provide youth with exposure to positive adult role models have made a difference. Over the years, I have met with numerous young people whose lives have been turned around because someone in the community--be it a school principal, police officer, or program director--has taken an interest in them. Investment in prevention programs can save lives and can reduce crime. Because I believe we must include prevention programming as part of our comprehensive approach toward crime, today I am introducing, along with Senator Kohl, the Juvenile Crime Prevention and Reform Act. I am very pleased to be joined by Senator Kohl in this effort. We once served as ranking members of the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee. I know that he continues to share a keen interest in this subject and cares a great deal about America's youth. The purpose of the legislation we are introducing is to remedy the defects in the prevention title of last year's crime bill, while preserving a meaningful role for prevention programming in our national crime strategy. The problem with last year's crime bill was that it became a vehicle for an assortment of unproven social programs, many of which were not directly linked to crime prevention. The undisciplined addition of these programs gave rise to the charge the bill was laden with pork and that the programs were nothing more than social experimentation. The proper response to what happened last year, however, is not to repeal all the juvenile crime prevention programs in the crime bill. Eliminating prevention programming would send the wrong message to children and parents from distressed, crime-ridden communities who are trying the best they can to lead normal, productive lives. As an alternative, this legislation takes a comprehensive look at both the problems and promise of crime prevention programming. The heart of the bill is a mandate that every program authorized by the legislation be subjected to a rigorous scientific evaluation. This is the only way that Congress and the States can begin to determine which prevention strategies work and which do not. In addition, we require the administration to develop a proposal to consolidate and rationalize the scores of Federal programs designed to provide assistance to at-risk youth. Preliminary results from a study I requested from GAO indicate that there are over 128 Federal programs that target at-risk youth. Most of these programs have tiny budgets and overlapping missions. Savings can be gained by consolidating redundant programs and repealing programs that have not proven to be effective or have outlived their usefulness. Third, we start the process of trimming the number of overlapping and redundant programs by repealing 12 programs from last year's crime bill and other statutes. These repeals result in over $1 billion in savings. Finally, we preserve and streamline four core prevention programs, each of which is carefully targeted to address the needs of communities that have been ravaged by crime: One program will provide assistance in the form of a block grant directly to local governments where the most creative prevention work is being done. Local governments are given wide latitude as to how these funds should be spent, so long as they are dedicated to programs to prevent juvenile violence and delinquency. Second, the bill authorizes funding for the Weed and Seed Program, a Bush administration initiative, which requires local police, prosecutors, correctional officers, schools, and community organizations to integrate law enforcement efforts and prevention programming. Third, the bill preserves the bipartisan Community Schools Program, which provides funding to keep school and other community facilities open in the afternoon, weekends, and summers, to serve as community centers. This program is designed to meet what a school principal from Westbrook, ME has described to me as ``our young people's desperate need for quality after-school programs that address both their academic, social, and recreational development.'' Finally, the bill will address the pervasive problem of youth gangs by consolidating the Federal Government's fragmented gang intervention efforts and creating a unified antigang program with sufficient funding to have an impact. The total cost of the four programs is $3 billion, approximately $1 billion less than the amount of funds dedicated to youth prevention programming in last year's crime bill. One of the Nation's leading experts on crime, James Q. Wilson has testified this year that ``I believe we should continue to test promising crime prevention strategies, building on such leads as we now possess and subjecting each strategy to rigorous, external evaluation.'' That is exactly what this bill accomplishes. This package is comprehensive, it addresses both the strengths and weaknesses of the Federal Government's crime prevention efforts, and it is sensitive to the genuine needs of our communities. We owe it to the Nation's youth to continue searching for ways to effectively prevent crime and make our communities safer. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to sponsor this important amendment to ensure that regulations providing for quality standards in mammography screening are fully implemented as swiftly as possible. Despite promising scientific advances in the treatment and diagnosis of breast cancer, this disease remains a major health threat to millions of American women. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among women. Last year alone, it is estimated by the National Cancer Institute that over 182,000 new cases of breast cancer were diagnosed and more than 46,000 women in the United States died as a result of this devastating disease. This disease often strikes women in the prime of their lives and, as women get older, the odds of developing breast cancer steadily increase. One in eight women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives. With statistics this sober, nearly every family will be directly affected by this disease. In 1992, I cosponsored the Mammography Quality Standards Assurance Act because I knew of the critical importance of accurate breast cancer screening. Mammograms are among the most difficult tests to perform. If images are not clear or if tests are improperly read, cancers can be missed, leading to delayed treatment and premature death. Prior to the adoption of this act, only a patchwork of Federal State, and voluntary standards existed for mammography. Women could not be assured that their mammograms were properly administered, interpreted or communicated to them or their physicians. In absence of a cure, mammography and the early detection of breast cancer is still the most effective weapon women have to fight this increasingly common--and often fatal--disease. Currently, the FDA has in place interim rules for the Mammography Quality Assurance Act which establish national standards to ensure the safety and accuracy of breast cancer screening procedures. However, the final proposed regulations are not expected until this October. While the interim regulations are enforceable and have established rules for accreditation, certification and annual inspection, it is crucial that we do not delay in full implementation of final regulations. I am aware that there are questions as to whether S. 343 would have any effect on the implementation of these standards, but I believe that it is critically important to be absolutely sure that these regulations are not derailed, or delayed. The mammography standards were passed nearly 3 years ago and we must move forward on this important women's health issue. The proposed final regulations further ensure the safety of mammography in significant ways. They specify performance standards for x-rays, develop procedures for examining women with breast implants and standardize requirements on medical records and mammography reports. Each of these reforms are essential to ensuring that all mammography done in this country is as reliable as possible. Early detection of breast cancer will save countless lives. The Mammography Quality Standards Assurance Act ensures that women get the best possible breast cancer screening and that they will have the best chance of treating their cancer once diagnosed. We owe it to each family touched by this devastating disease that these critical standards be exempted from any additional regulatory delays and that they become effective before more precious lives are lost to breast cancer.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I would like to offer a few comments this afternoon about the need for regulatory reform and then more specifically about a substitute amendment that I anticipate will be offered, if not today then sometime during the course of the debate on this bill. At the outset, I would like to make clear that I believe that we need to have regulatory reform in this country. We now have what is fairly described as a cumbersome regulatory morass. I think it is the result of over 40 years of having a very activist Government. The number of executive branch and independent regulatory agencies has been steadily increasing since the New Deal. This increase in the size of Government has been compounded by the fact that Congress passes hundreds of new laws every year, while statutes are rarely taken off the books. With each new law comes an ever-expanding set of detailed rules and regulations. So, while we cannot deny the fact that those faceless Federal bureaucrats do compound the problem, we also ought to look right here at home in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, because we, too, have responsibility for this trend of more and more laws which require more and more regulations. This regulatory burden that Congress has created, I think everyone recognizes, is daunting even for the largest [[Page S 9776]] of corporations that can hire a whole spate of attorneys to advise them in complying with the regulations that are imposed. But I think the burden is clearly overwhelming for most of the small businesses in this country that are bombarded with reams of technical legalese and ordered to comply with regulations they do not understand. These are the very small businesses which happen to be the backbone of this country's economy. I think the overwhelming burden they are required to measure up to, and many cannot do so, has contributed in large part to the disenchantment with Government we are seeing in recent years. We have heard a lot about bringing common sense into the regulatory process. My colleague from Utah has spoken about this. But I would like to point out the fact it was Senator Glenn, of Ohio, whom I recall first holding up the book, ``The Death of Common Sense,'' in one of our hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee. We can all quote from this book and others, giving anecdotes which lay a foundation for the need for change in this country. One anecdote from that book discusses an OSHA regulation that requires manufacturers to describe the possible harmful effects of a hazardous substance on every package or container of the product. In 1991, OSHA decided that packages of everyday bricks must contain a hazardous substance notice because a small amount of silica is released when the bricks are sawed in half. But OSHA did not consider the fact that bricks are rarely sawed in half, and that when they are only trace amounts of silica would be released. Nonetheless, the agency imposed this useless paperwork requirement on the Nation's brick manufacturers. Clearly, in that case, common sense did not prevail. I recently held a field hearing in Maine on Government regulations. I heard of another case where Federal regulators appeared to lose their common sense. A number of years ago, the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, demanded that McCurdy Fish Co., of Lubec, ME, change its production method to protect the public from the threat of botulism. The FDA's extensive testing, however, never found any contamination in McCurdy's product. In addition, the FDA was applying a safety standard for freshwater fish even though McCurdy sold small ocean herring, a totally different type of fish. Nonetheless, FDA insisted that this small company purchase $75,000 worth of equipment to eliminate a hazard that had never arisen in the past and that was unlikely to ever arise in the future. Yet, with only $250,000 of annual revenue, McCurdy simply could not comply. As a result, it was forced to close its doors back in 1991, eliminating 22 jobs in an industry that had been part of that small community since the early 1800's. Twenty-two jobs may not sound like a lot to many of my colleagues here in the Senate, but 22 jobs in a small town like Lubec, on the coast of Maine, has a major impact upon the local economy. That is another case where common sense did not prevail. It is another case where we saw regulations proposed and imposed by the so-called faceless bureaucrats which really produced an inequitable result. Even though all of us can point to these types of horror stories and we can all agree that we need to reform our regulatory system, I think there is substantial difference of opinion about what is the correct solution. First of all, I do not think we can accomplish reform in a one-shot proposition. It cannot be accomplished on one piece of legislation; it cannot be accomplished overnight. As impatient as we might be to remove these excessive layers of regulation that have been accumulating over the past 40 years, we cannot succumb to the temptation to look for a quick fix that is going to cause many more problems than it hopes to resolve. Real regulatory reform requires Congress to review each and every piece of Federal legislation, to repeal the laws that are no longer working or serving a useful purpose, and fix those that are unnecessarily causing an undue burden on our economy. Mr. President, I am prepared to do that. That is what needs to be done. We should not try to pass some sort of regulatory reformation here that is going to deal on a procedural level with what needs to be focused on in terms of substantive issues. The bill before the Senate seeks regulatory reform through procedural reform rather than substantive changes in the law, and it focuses on reforming the process for implementing and reviewing these Federal regulations. The Governmental Affairs Committee, on which I sit, has been struggling with this issue for decades. Some 20 years ago the committee first issued a comprehensive report, concluding that the regulatory system was too costly and the process for developing the regulations too often ignored the costs that those regulations imposed on the economy. And the problems have only worsened since that time. The annual cost of Federal regulation was recently estimated to be approximately $560 billion for 1992 and projected to reach the staggering level of $660 billion by the year 2000. The remedy for this ill is twofold. First, Congress has to stop passing laws without considering the huge costs we are imposing on the economy in comparison to the benefits that are going to be derived. Second, after Congress does pass a law, the executive branch agencies need to make every effort to interpret and enforce the laws in the least costly manner possible. I believe that S. 291, which is the bill that was unanimously reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee this past March, represented a balanced approach toward reforming the regulatory process. A version of that bill is going to be introduced as a substitute by Senator Glenn and Senator Chafee later on during the course of the debate on this measure. It requires the agencies to perform cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment for major rules. It authorizes sufficiently rigorous judicial review to ensure that the agencies take this responsibility very seriously. And it mandates that agencies review their existing regulations of cost effectiveness. I believe this approach is clearly superior to the one that we are currently considering. These provisions, combined with the congressional review process already passed by the Senate, would represent a marked improvement in our current regulatory system. I am a cosponsor of the Glenn-Chafee substitute and hope it gains the support of my colleagues. The Glenn-Chafee substitute is also commendable because it does not alter substantive statutes that are currently in effect and does not delegated to unelected Federal judges the authority to second-guess Congress' judgments about the costs and benefits of public policies. I frankly do not believe it is appropriate to attempt to alter carefully crafted legislation, some of which has enjoyed the support of Congresses over the years, through a statute which is designed to improve Federal rulemaking. If we do not like the Clean Water Act, if we do not like the Clean Air Act, if we do not like the Superfund Act, we ought to change them. But what we are doing is calling upon the regulators to change the substantive law that we have the responsibility to modify and to change if we are dissatisfied with it. I also believe it is inappropriate for a Congress which is concerned about litigation, about lawyers, about judges, about judicial activism, to suddenly hand them our laws and say, ``Here, you take care of this. You decide whether the agencies have exceeded their mandate. You decide whether or not their cost-benefit analysis was correct or inaccurate. You decide whether or not the least possible cost is involved here, as opposed to another regulatory alternative.'' I do not believe that judges are well-equipped to evaluate whether the social and economic benefits of a policy justify its costs. The balancing of costs and benefits is essentially a political judgment, not a legal one. If a law passed by Congress requires agencies to implement inefficient regulations, then the responsibility for reversing those regulations rests with Congress. The Glenn-Chafee alternative accomplishes this by requiring the agencies to notify Congress when a regulation fails a cost-benefit test and by giving Congress the power to void any such regulation through expedited procedures. [[Page S 9777]] Mr. President, I think, for a Congress which is concerned about too much litigation taking place in this country, this bill is really inviting more litigation, and more lawyers and judges to now start interpreting what is taking place in the agencies, rather than the Congress measuring up to its own responsibility. So I think that the pending bill before us certainly can be improved upon. If the goal of regulatory reform is to make Government work better, we should not be overloading the Government with so many analytical requirements that it does not work at all. We cannot on the one hand bog agencies down with analytical requirements and expose them to additional litigation, and at the same time demand that they be able to meet the public's demand for prompt action. One thing is for sure. We know this. If another bacteria infects the city water system, the public is going to want to know, ``Where is the EPA?'' If workers are trapped in a factory fire, the public is going to want to know, ``Where was OSHA at the time to prevent this incident from taking place?'' If there is an outbreak of contaminated meat, people will look to the Department of Agriculture for answers. The public wants smaller and less intrusive Government. It also expects the Government to perform a core set of functions promptly and effectively. So these are the issues that are of concern to me: The effect of the bill on existing law, the role of the courts, and the cumulative burden on the agencies. I believe the Glenn-Chafee substitute is superior to the bill we are considering. I do not know if it will gain a majority. But I hope it receives sufficient support to force some needed changes to S. 343. Over the past week of debate, progress has been made on a number of fronts and some improvements have been made to the bill. The Johnston amendment raising the threshold for major rules from $50 to $100 million was a step in the right direction. I would like to see the process of negotiation and compromise continue so a regulatory reform bill passes the Senate by a substantial margin and a bill emerges from conference that will be signed into law by the President. A truly bipartisan regulatory reform bill that could be enthusiastically supported by both parties would go a long way to restoring some of the confidence in our government that unfortunately has eroded over the past years. I see both of the authors of the bill on the floor. I want to commend them for being open to making changes. I think some real progress has been made during the last several days to improve the legislation now pending. I am hopeful that we will see even more changes to make sure that a strong bipartisan group of Senators supports the legislation. For that reason, I would like to urge very strong consideration of the Glenn-Chafee substitute when it is proposed.

Mr. COHEN

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

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 29, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-538, to conduct a markup on legislation which is pending in the committee.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 29, 1995, for purposes of conducting a Subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 594, a bill to provide for the administration of certain Presidio properties at minimal cost to the Federal taxpayer.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety be [[Page S 9468]] granted permission to meet Thursday, June 29, at 2 p.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on the Clean Air Act's inspection and maintenance program.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 29, 1995, at 9:15 a.m. in SD- 226.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Aging of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on the Older Americans Act, during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 29, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 29, 1995, to hold hearings on the Investigation of the Friendly Fire Incident during the Persian Gulf War.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet on Thursday, June 29, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a hearing on Medicaid.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 29, 1995, at 11 a.m.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 29, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. to mark up the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Thursday, June 29, 1995 session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the following nominations: Robert Talcott Francis, II and John Goglia to be members of the National Transportation Safety Board and Robert Clarke Brown to be a member of the board of directors of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 29, 1995, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee joint hearing which is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the energy and environmental implications of the Komi oilspills in the former Soviet Union.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee be granted permission to meet to conduct a joint oversight hearing to explore the environmental and energy-related consequences of Komi oilspills Thursday, June 29, at 10 a.m., Energy Committee Hearing Room (SD-366).

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. On this class warfare issue, we have been through this year after year after year. When the tax debate took place several years ago, many on the other side said it is time to tax the rich. We have to go after the fat cats. Let us put a luxury tax on furs, on jewelry, on yachts, on cars. And what happened? They aimed at the rich, and whom did they hit? The working men and women. We lost jobs in my State. You know why? Because the rich bought their boats elsewhere. Hinkley Boat Yard, one of the finest shipbuilders in the country----

Mr. COHEN. If the Senator would yield. You mentioned one of the President's economic advisers. Let me repeat what I said earlier. I think President Clinton deserves a good deal of credit for coming forward with his second budget proposal saying, let us do it in 10 years, not 7. By the way, he recognized what his trustees in Medicare told him--the system is going bankrupt. Starting next year the payments going out under Medicare will exceed the revenues coming in. Then it goes into a steep decline in the year 2002 and it is broke. President Clinton had the courage to change and recognize his mistake in the first budget and to say now that we have got to fix it. Now, we may disagree in terms of what level of funding is necessary, but at least he faced up to the responsibility; he did not try to exploit the issue, saying it is Republicans trying to do in the old folks. We have got to save the fund. We have got to save the Medicare fund. He seems willing to do it. We are willing to do it. There ought to be a way to work it out. But I have not heard any suggestion on the other side. I have heard no resolution being offered, or even being contemplated, endorsing President Clinton's second budget. I heard none forthcoming. If I could have one more comment.

Mr. COHEN. I think it is really important that we try to move away from this debate on class warfare, that once again it is Republicans simply bailing out the rich and it is the Democrats standing up for the elderly and the young and the poor. Senator Lott is the son of a shipyard worker, a blue-collar worker, a union worker from Mississippi. I am the son of a small-town baker in Bangor, ME. My father does not have very much in the way of material goods. He works really hard--my mother and father both. He is 86 and still works 18 hours a day. And all he has is what he makes, period, each day. I take offense that supporting this budget is somehow akin to bailing out the rich. I will tell you what I am concerned about. I have two sons, both married, both starting out, and they have a future that is pretty bleak. They have a future that is bleak because of what we have been doing. We have been eating their seed corn, their food and then asking them to pay the bill. When I look at their futures in terms of what they will have to pay in interest payments on the debt, unless we change our ways, then I have real apprehension for their future. They are not rich. They are not wealthy. One has gone back to graduate school after being out of college for 10 years, and another has decided to go into college after being away. So I have two now, one in graduate school and one in undergraduate school. It is not easy. They are going to have a tough time. But they are going to have a much tougher time unless we change the way we have been dealing with their futures. So that is the reason I support a balanced budget, not because of any interest in bailing out the rich or passing out benefits for the wealthy. What I want to do is make sure we start curbing our appetites so that we do not simply eat away their future. As Thomas Jefferson stated, ``whenever one generation spends money and then taxes another to pay for it, that first generation is squandering futurity on a massive scale.'' That is what we are doing; we are squandering our children's future on a massive scale. In my judgment, that amounts to fiscal child abuse and we have to stop the beating and stop the bleeding.

Mr. COHEN. If the Senator will yield.

Mr. COHEN. I thank the Senator. I simply wanted to indicate to him that there will be times as we go through this process that I will put my colleagues on notice that I do not share the assumptions contained in the resolution and will work to modify them.

Mr. COHEN. And I may wish to cut back on the level of tax reduction as such to alleviate cuts in some of the programs we just talked about.

Mr. COHEN. Right.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. President, it is interesting listening to the latest statements made by the other side that the American people deserve a better plan than this. If so, where has it been? Where is the plan that has been proposed by the minority? They talk about these Republican cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Let me say that the President of the United States recently had the fortitude and the courage to measure up to the problem confronting Medicare and Medicaid. These programs are going broke. The trustees of the Medicare trust fund have reported that it will be insolvent in 6\1/2\ to 7 years. I suppose we could just put that off until after the next election and not deal with it. But six or seven years from now there will be no payments made to any hospital or to any doctor on behalf of anyone. President Clinton at least has had the courage to face up to the challenge facing us and say that he has a plan--a 10-year plan versus the 7-year plan, but at least he has a plan. I did not hear anybody over there endorse it. If they had an endorsement I suppose it would be forthcoming now. So I take some challenge or question about the notion that somehow this is a Republican design simply to inflict pain and suffering upon the elderly. I think there is a legitimate issue to be raised about cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. But at least the President of the United States has faced up to it. He deserves a good deal of credit for having done so. Insurance market reforms, portability, malpractice reforms--all of that has been proposed on a bipartisan basis. Action has yet to be taken. I do not have the time to go into who has held up those kind of reforms in the past. But nonetheless, they are there. And I think they are there for the taking if there is a bipartisan spirit to do so. This is a blueprint, as has been described by the chairman of the Budget Committee. It is not faultless. It is not flawless. But I believe Senator Domenici deserves a great deal of credit at least for trying to come up with something that is not made of smoke and mirrors, that has not been a ``triumph of politics,'' as David Stockman wrote in his book, but something that has some real numbers behind it. It is not a ``free toss,'' as the critics of the balanced budget amendment suggested when we debated that issue before and lost by one vote. The critics said that individuals could vote for a balanced budget amendment but would never measure up when the budget comes through. I think this conference report is adequate rebuttal. Those who supported a balanced budget amendment also are committed to producing a balanced budget for the consideration of this Congress. I am one who has questions about the level of taxation included here. I think the tax cut is too high. I have told that to the chairman of the Budget Committee personally and I reiterate it again today. I think it applies or could apply to those who are not in need. I intend to raise such issues when we come to authorization, appropriations, and reconciliation. So I am not fully committed to each and every detail contained in this particular blueprint. I hope to change it. I know there are a number of colleagues on this side who share my views, that we are not going to support some of the provisions in this particular blueprint. But let me say that this at least comes to grips with the entitlement issue. Several years ago Senator Domenici and Senator Nunn offered an amendment on the floor dealing with entitlements. There were only 28 votes; 28 people who were willing to face up to the fact that we must curb the growth in entitlement programs. Today's blueprint represents a majority, not 28. So I want to give Senator Domenici credit for his persistence in coming to grips with the difficult problem that we all have known about but have been unwilling to face. There have been, in my opinion, cuts too deep in the field of biomedical research, education, and nutrition. Again, I have made that very clear to my friend from New Mexico, that I intend to support efforts to reverse some of those proposals. But, Mr. President, I listen again and again to the attacks against this proposal coming from those who say: We have a better idea. I have not heard it. Not one has come forward with a balanced budget plan. I have listened to speeches this afternoon saying, ``I am for a balanced budget. But not this one.'' It is much like St. Augustine saying, ``Dear Lord, give me chastity, but not yet'' when I hear them saying, ``Give us a balanced budget, not this one, not now, sometime in the future, but not yet.'' So, in spite of my reservations that I have expressed privately to Senator Domenici and to others, I believe that it is important for the first time since my service in Congress to go on record in favor of a balanced budget before this Congress, to approve it in spite of the fact that I have reservations about the tax cuts; approve it in spite of questions about the level of funding for research. My Aging Committee had hearings just this week, which pointed out that we are being penny-wise and pound-foolish; that, if we invest a small amount of money in medical research, we can save as much as $70 billion by delaying for 5 years the onset of Alzheimer's, or a stroke, or Parkinson's. Those are the kind of investments we ought to make, and those are the kind of investments I am going to support when the time comes to vote on the authorization and the appropriations bills. Mr. President, I want to go on record as saying I do in fact favor a balanced budget. This is a proposal. It is the only one before us. Until I hear a better one, I intend to support the Senator from New Mexico. [[Page S 9372]]