Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Democratic leader is about to come onto the floor. So I will not get started on a number of things that I have to talk about. But I note that the Senator from Wyoming, my good friend, Senator Simpson, mentioned that the Paralyzed Veterans spoke out against this amendment, which is something that saddened me very much. They wanted all veterans included. So did I. They want all their members included. They have 16,000 members of Paralyzed Veterans nationwide. Their chapter in West Virginia actually does not agree with them. The head of the West Virginia chapter is non service disabled, in a wheelchair. He said that he did not agree with his national organization's position, that he wanted me to do whatever I could to preserve veterans benefits. On the other hand, let's turn to the Disabled American Veterans (DAV). They represent 1.4 million veterans, and DAV very much supports the amendment. Mr. President, last week was Valentine's Day. That is a day, of course, we remember to set aside for those we love. Valentine's Day has another meaning altogether for a certain West Virginia veteran who served in World War II through the Korean war. He is a friend of mine, Ezra Miller. I want to talk about him. It was on Valentine's Day, in fact, in 1943 that Ezra Miller was captured by the Germans and began his own private war, which was a private war to survive. Ezra grew up on a farm in Lincoln County, WV. That is a rural county. Like so many of our mountaineers, he never hesitated when he thought that his country needed him. Before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Ezra had enlisted in the Army. In early 1943, Ezra found himself close to the front lines in North Africa. His unit's mission was to go ahead as foot soldiers, and blow up a pass that would prevent the Germans from entering into North Africa. He got this assignment on the 2d day in combat. His description of the event goes like this. This is one of the men that we will be protecting. He said: On that day, a small American observation plane flew over our gun emplacements and dropped a message from headquarters that said, ``Destroy everything and get out on foot, if you can. The Germans have you surrounded.'' After taking the message to the outpost, I tried to get out of the area on foot but I never made it because I got pinned down by dive bombers. I laid down in a slit trench and a 500-pound bomb exploded very close to me and pushed an enormous amount of dirt all over me. Ezra goes on to say that a German tank rolled right over that slit trench now filled by dirt and by Ezra, and after it passed, he got up and found himself looking into the barrel of a German rifle. Ezra spent the next 2 years, 3 months, and 27 days as a prisoner of war. During that time he lived in five different prison camps, one of which was called Dachau. At one point, he and his fellow prisoners traveled in boxcars. We have heard about those things, have we not? The boxcars, Mr. President, should have held only 40 men. The Germans crammed 84 POW's and Ezra into a boxcar, and they rode like that for 4 days and 3 nights. They had to remain standing because they were packed in there so tightly that they were unable to move. Ezra called it ``pitiful.'' He said they could hear the planes passing overhead, but had no idea whose they were or what was happening. When Ezra enlisted in the Army, he was in his early twenties. He stood 5 feet 11 inches tall and he weighed 174 pounds. When he was freed, he weighed less than 90 pounds. Yet, he remained in the military, and he went on to fight in Korea. For the last 2 years, Ezra has made his home at the West Virginia Veterans Home in Barboursville, something I started when I was Governor. He tells me that he loves living there, and I as a Senator and as his friend am delighted that Barboursville is there for Ezra and the many deserving veterans like him. But I want to make a very important point that I think cannot be overlooked. One would expect that our Government is paying a sizable benefit to Ezra, I would think a large one, and the others like him who were prisoners of war. No, not so. Ezra Miller is only 10 percent ``service-connected.'' That is the terminology for it. That means his monthly check to compensate him for injuries he received during his military service--do you know how much per month? Eighty-seven bucks. If we pass this balanced budget amendment and we do not pass this amendment to it, and we take 30 percent of that, Ezra will receive 61 bucks per month. Are we going to tell Ezra that it is his time to sacrifice again, for him to pull in his belt? He is back up to over 90 pounds again. Not this Senator from West Virginia, not me. Our country had almost 150,000 Americans who were captured and interned from World War I through the Persian Gulf war. Can we ask our POW's to take a cut in benefits, our prisoners of war? Mr. President, I notice the presence of the Democratic leader on the floor. I will address a question to the Democratic leader. Would he care to proceed? I know he wanted to say something on this amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. My record has been very clear from the very beginning that I oppose the balanced budget amendment for a lot of reasons, of which my concern for veterans is a main one. I have no illusions as to what is going to happen to this amendment and neither does the chairman of my committee, on which I am the Ranking Member. My good friend Alan Simpson knows what is going to happen to this. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair. Motion to Refer

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to join my distinguished colleagues in honoring the 75th anniversary of the founding of the League of Women Voters of the United States of America this week. This organization has a tremendous record of encouraging women to be active in their communities and involved in promoting good public policy. The League of Women Voters can be very proud of its history of public education and leadership that has helped to strengthen our Government and country over the years. I also am extremely proud that a native West Virginian and a good friend of mine, Becky Cain, is president of the league during its 75th anniversary celebration. As we all know, the League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan political organization with 1,100 chapters and over 150,000 members and supporters around the country. Open to both women and men, the league encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in Government through education, advocacy, and organization at the local, State, and national levels. I know how important the league is for America. I have seen how their grassroots efforts helped pass legislation such as the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, the historic motor-voter bill, which is making it easier for more Americans to register to vote and perform one of the essential acts in a democracy. Helping to enfranchise millions of Americans is a fundamental effort to strengthen the fabric of our country. In addition, the league has launched national campaigns such as the 1992 Take Back the System Program that actively sought to increase voter confidence and involvement in the electoral system. And as we all know, the league is active at the State and local level in educating voters and getting people involved in Government. On many occasions, I have been proud to work with league, join in their nonpartisan debates, and participate in their events in West Virginia and Washington to debate the issues. As we think about our country and the future, I believe that Americans need organizations like the League of Women Voters more than ever to help develop the links and communication between people and public servants that are so essential for our government to be responsive and effective. The league and its members deserve our deep appreciation for their steadfast commitment to educating voters in a nonpartisan way about the tough choices and issues that we all must face and should try to resolve together.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation that would establish up to five centers of excellence in the area of mental illness at existing VA health care facilities. These centers, to be known as mental illness research, education, and clinical centers [MIRECC's] would be a vitally important and integral link in VA's efforts in the areas of research, education, and furnishing of clinical care delighted to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Akaka, Campbell, Dorgan, and Wellstone. Mr. President, the need to improve services to mentally ill veterans has been recognized for a number of years. For example, the October 20, 1985, report of the Special Purposes Committee to Evaluate the Mental Health and Behavioral Sciences Research Program of the VA, chaired by Dr. Seymour Kety--generally referred to as the Kety Committee-- concluded that research on mental illness and training for psychiatrists and other mental health specialists at VA facilities were totally inadequate. The Kety report noted that about 40 percent of VA beds are occupied by veterans who suffer from mental disorders, yet less than 10 percent of VA's research resources are directed toward mental illness. Little has changed since that report. Information provided to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs at our August 3, 1993, hearing showed that the percentage of VA patients suffering with mental illness continues to hover over the same 40 percent rate found by the Kety Committee. Likewise, VA's research on mental illness has not increased to any appreciable extend and was estimated to be approximately 12 percent. Mr. President, VA provides mental health services to more than one half to three quarters of a million veterans each year, yet in the decade between the time the Kety Committee began its work and now, there has not been a significant effort to focus VA's resources on the needs of mentally ill veterans. Among the recommendations of the Kety Committee was one that VA centers of excellence be established to develop first-rate psychiatric research programs within VA. Such centers, in the view of the Kety Committee, would provide state-of-the- art treatment, increase innovative basic and clinical research opportunities, and enhance and encourage training and treatment of mental illness. Based on the recommendations of the Kety Committee, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs began efforts more than 6 years ago to encourage research into mental illnesses and to establish centers of excellence. For example, on May 20, 1988, Public Law 100-322 was enacted which included a provision to add an express reference to mental illness research in the statutory description of VA's medical research mission which is set forth in section 7303(a)(2) of title 38. At that time, the committee--see S. Rept. 100-215, page 138--urged VA to establish three center of excellence, or MIRECC's, as proposed by the Kety Committee. In March 1992, Senator Cranston, then chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, noted that the VA had not taken any action to implement those recommendations. I unfortunately must tell you today that the VA still has done little to implement the recommendations of the Kety committee and has made no progress on the establishment of centers of excellence. Mr. President, I also note that the January 1991 final report of the blue ribbon VA Advisory Committee for Health Research Policy recommended the establishment of MIRECC's as a means of increasing opportunities in psychiatric research and encouraging the formulation of new research initiatives in mental health care, as well as maintaining the intellectual environment so important to quality health care. The report stated that these ``centers could provide a way to deal with the emerging priorities in the VA and the Nation at large.'' In light of VA's failure to act administratively to establish these centers of excellence, our committee has developed legislation to accomplish this objective. The proposed MIRECC's legislation is patterned after the legislation which created the very successful geriatric research, education, and clinical centers [GRECC's], section 302 of Public Law 96-330, enacted in 1980. The MIRECC's would be designed first, to congregate at one facility clinicians and research investigators with a clear and precise clinical research mission, such as PTSD, schizophrenia, or drug abuse and alcohol abuse; second, to provide training and educational opportunities for students and residents in psychiatry, psychology, nursing, social work, and other professions which treat individuals with mental illness; and third, to develop new models of effective care and treatment for veterans with mental illnesses, especially those with service-connected conditions. The establishment of MIRECC's should encourage research into outcomes of various types of treatment for mental illnesses, an aspect of mental illness research which, to date, has not been fully pursued, either by VA or other researchers. The bill would promote the sharing of information regarding all aspects of MIRECC's activities throughout VHA by requiring the Chief Medical Director to develop continuing education programs at regional medical education centers. Finally, beginning February 1, 1997, the Secretary would be required to submit to the two Veterans' Affairs Committees annual reports on the research, education, and clinical care activities at each MIRECC and on the efforts to disseminate the information throughout the VA health care system. At our committee hearing on August 3, 1993, numerous witnesses, including Dr. John Lipkin, representing the American Psychiatric Association, and Mr. Richard Greer, representing the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, testified in favor of the MIRECC legislation. All of the veterans service organizations testifying at the hearing--the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, and Paralyzed Veterans--supported the enactment of MIRECC legislation. Mr. President, the VA for too long has made inadequate efforts to improve research and treatment of mentally ill veterans and to foster educational activities designed to improve the capabilities of VA mental health professionals. The establishment of MIRECC's will be a significant step forward in improving care for some of our neediest veterans. I am hopeful that this long recognized need will become more than a forgotten want item for veterans who suffer, in many cases, in silence. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs has reported, and the Senate has passed, comparable legislation in each of the last three Congresses. I hope to bring this legislation before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs soon and remain optimistic that we can move forward with this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the concept of a capital budget embodied in this amendment offered by Senator Biden and Minority Leader Daschle. This amendment would establish a separate capital budget for the Federal Government, which would be distinct from the general operating budget. It would provide the mechanism to make major physical investments that are necessary to remain internally strong and able to compete with other nations for the jobs and opportunities our citizens deserve. I think we all realize the benefits and importance of long-term investments in our Nation's infrastructure. In creating a separate capital budget, we would recognize the difference between the government spending that responds to immediate needs and the spending that serves as an investment in America over generations. Families are familiar with this concept. Millions of households borrow to make very specific investments in their own futures, such as the mortgage required to buy a home. They do this because they realize the long-term benefits of home ownership. They recognize that many of the things they buy will last beyond the time they are done making payments on them. My highly respected friend, the senior Senator from West Virginia, has described how he went into debt to purchase a bedroom set when he and his wife were younger. This very frugal, wise person made a sensible investment to increase his family's standard of living. The fundamental purpose for a capital budget is to ensure that America's citizens of today are targeting certain resources into our collective needs over future needs. When states issue bonds to pay for things like drinking water purification systems, they are recognizing that the benefits of that new system will go to many people over the course of 25 years of so. If a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution passes, it should be constructed to treat a one-time, one-year tax break differently than the long-term investments in the necessary pillars of a strong nation. I think of the facilities needed to keep water pure and safe. Airports, highways and roads are that are the lifeblood of our economy, and are the only way for rural areas to have real opportunities for jobs and industries. Many of those in favor of a balanced budget amendment point out that 49 states work within a balanced budget requirement. However, most of those requirements allow for state borrowing to fund capital investments. In West Virginia, while we do not have a formal capital budget process, our state is permitted to borrow to fund long-term investments. The state is allowed to repay these debts over time from general revenues provided that there is a statewide vote granting the authority to do so. The state may also incur debt without this vote if the repayment is something other than general revenues. In November, the voters in West Virginia held one of these statewide votes and passed what was called amendment 3. It was designed to fund water and sewer projects--an investment they felt will give them and their families benefits over a number of years. Amendment 3 specifically authorized the state legislature to issue and sell up to $300 million in state bonds to be paid for over a period of 30 years. Mr. President, as a former Governor, I am more than familiar with the difference between operating budgets and capital investments that cannot be neglected. I know the cost all too well of neglecting infrastructure, health and safety facilities, transportation--when I became Governor, I faced those costs and fought to catch up so our state could compete for the jobs and opportunities that we saw other states win as a result of their superior roads and other assets. I am afraid that if we pass this balanced budget amendment without allowing for a capital budgeting process, we will make a bad mistake even worse. The idea of using the Constitution to set economic policy is bad enough. Passing such an amendment without allowing for a separate capital budget that recognizes the difference between long and short term investments is short-sighted and could be very costly to future generations. Mr. President, all of my colleagues should vote for this amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, when the roll is called on this amendment, the Reid amendment, every American will begin to get a much clearer picture of how a constitutional amendment to balance the budget will in fact affect them as individuals. Only by adopting the Reid amendment now before us will the U.S. Senate prove that Social Security is safe--prove that it is safe. And that is why I urge its adoption. I must be honest with my colleagues. Even though I intend to vote against the constitutional amendment before us, I will vote for the Reid amendment to protect Social Security and the promise that has been made to the people of my State and to the people of America. If the Reid amendment is rejected or dropped along the way--and, of course, there is a real possibility that it could be accepted and then dropped in conference, something of that sort--it will be the equivalent of posting a danger sign in front of every household that counts on Social Security, not only in my State of West Virginia but all across the country. Our colleagues promoting this balanced budget amendment can promise in every way they can possibly think Social Security alone, they will not touch it after they get the amendment ratified--but unless the Constitution also reminds them of their promise, I think the pressure to nip, to tuck, and to do much more to Social Security could be unstoppable. This constitutional amendment for balancing the budget is not just a statement of support for the idea; it is a plan to put the Federal budget on a speeding train. It will require something in the neighborhood of $1 trillion in spending cuts over 7 years. Just imagine what Congress will have to consider when the clock on those 7 years starts ticking. All the theorizing will be gone and the budget cutting will start. You can just hear the talk already. ``Social Security,'' they say, ``will have to be on the table.'' ``No, we did not want it to be on the table. We just had no idea that would happen. But it has just come about that it has to be on the table because we have to cut this $1 trillion, or $1.3 trillion. How are we going to cut all these entitlements? How are we going to do all this without Social Security and without Medicare and without benefits for disabled veterans?'' That is what will happen. Mr. President, I actually do not know how this will come about. I believe the worst part of this constitutional amendment is its very proponents do not know how they will rush their way to its destination. They defeated the right-to-know amendment. They did that very decisively and deliberately. And because I see Social Security as just one of the sacred trusts that might get torn up on the way, I do not trust them in their budget-cutting zeal. I do not trust their sense of priorities. But the Reid amendment is one way to keep the Social Security train off the track that could very well plow down any number of things important to people's lives, to their hopes, to their expectations-- from vaccinations of children, to home health care for seniors, to the way we repay our debt to disabled veterans. I mentioned disabled veterans and I will again and again and again, because the people who were wounded in our wars, we have an obligation to them. We pay pensions to them. We have obligations that we must pay, and I fear those obligations will be compromised. Why do I say that? Because I believe that. As my colleagues think about the underlying legislation and the more immediate vote on the Reid amendment to protect the Social Security trust funds, I urge you to look at letters from seniors in your State and get a sense of what is at stake. I have done that and I assume that other Senators have, too. Skip the impersonal postcards generated by interest groups, skip all of the form letters when people's names come rolling out of computers. We all understand that game. But take the time to pick up some of the personal letters with the kind of very scrawled handwriting from seniors who are truly frightened about what will happen to them if the Social Security trust fund is unprotected and this balanced budget amendment passes. I have hundreds of such letters. Let me paraphrase the style. Take a letter that I got that starts with: I am 69 years old and worked every day of my life until I had to retire. I paid into the Social Security fund since the beginning. I collect $600 to $800 in Social Security a month, but my bills are more than that. So she has done everything right all of her life, paid into the fund. She gets Social Security that does not cover her bills. The woman does not live ostentatiously. West Virginia is not one of the richest States in our country. People do not have the luxury of living ostentatiously. When somebody says they cannot pay their bills, I am inclined to believe them because over the last 30 years, I have seen so many people in that condition. I have letters where seniors from my State painstakingly list their monthly expenses, their rent, their heat, their food, and their prescriptions. They ask me what they can do. In fact, what will they do if Social Security or Medicare is cut? They do not know. They are not hostile to a budget amendment. They are not hostile to cutting the budget. They just do not know what is going to happen to them. They honestly do not, and they are honestly afraid. Mr. President, I tell you that there are 9 million senior citizens who live all by themselves in this country, many of whom do not have daily contact with others, except sometimes home health care agencies check in on them. They do not know what they are going to do if this comes to pass. They are afraid. Where can they turn in their twilight years for help? I do not know what to tell them when they ask me the question. I do not know how to answer that question. I ask my colleagues who support the balanced budget amendment and who oppose the Reid amendment, what do you tell the senior citizens of your States? I can only tell West Virginians that I keep fighting to uphold the promise made to them. The benefits they earned by contributing to the Social Security system throughout their working years and careers are theirs. It is not a program; it is a trust fund. It is theirs. Over 250,000 West Virginia citizens rely on Social Security benefits. Nationwide, almost 30 million senior citizens get their benefits that way, 30 million people. For many, their monthly Social Security check is the difference between poverty and so-called independence, the difference between buying groceries or going hungry. Thirty-eight percent of senior citizens are not living in poverty today, Mr. President, thanks to Social Security. It has made that kind of a difference. This is a tremendous achievement that we can be proud of. So our challenge, as I see it, is, one, to protect Social Security now for the seniors living on fixed incomes; and, two, to plan ahead to ensure that Social Security is there when the young workers who are now contributing over 7 percent of their wages are ready to retire, which will come quicker than they think. Passing this constitutional amendment to balance the budget without the Reid amendment is one way to guarantee that we will fail to meet either of the challenges that I listed. We must protect the Social Security trust funds from becoming a pawn in a political debate over a politically attractive balanced budget amendment which sounds so reasonable and sounds so simple. That is why so many Americans support it. It sounds so easy. Here is an example of where the devil in fact really does lie in the details--the details that the proponents refuse, I might say, to spell out, where the right-to-know amendment was rejected. We were told in no uncertain terms that we were all to strap ourselves onto the speeding train and to stop worrying about what and who gets trampled along the way. This does not say that over the next decade, the Social Security system will not need change. It will, for its own sake. A recent report of its trustees clearly shows that long-term solvency problems threaten the Social Security trust funds. That is amply spoken about on the floor. If changes are not made, the trust funds will be exhausted in the year 2029. We have to begin working on solutions to the danger facing Social Security to restore its integrity, just as courageous Members of this body did, Senator Moynihan being one, in the past; in fact, in bipartisan legislation in 1983. But any change made to Social Security should be designed to strengthen the trust fund, not to surrender to the speed chase started recklessly by the constitutional balanced budget amendment. This balanced budget amendment--I am sorry; I just have to say it, because I believe it--is a game. It allows politicians to promise to be deficit hawks without requiring one single act on their part or one single clue on what they will actually cut. In my book, that is a game. And because I fear for the people of my State, which is vulnerable to the hidden agendas in this amendment, I support this proposal to make absolutely sure that Social Security is left alone. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, when the roll is called on this amendment, every American will begin to get a much clearer picture of how a constitutional amendment to balance the budget will affect them. Only by adopting the Reid amendment, will the U.S. Senate prove that Social Security is safe. That's why I urge its adoption. Even though I intend to vote against the Reid amendment to protect Social Security and the promise that has been made to the people of my State and the rest of America. If the Reid amendment is rejected, or dropped along the way, it will be the equivalent of posting a danger sign in front of every household that counts on Social Security today or sometime in the distant future. Our colleagues promoting this balanced budget amendment can promise in every way they know how that they'll leave Social Security alone after they get the constitutional amendment ratified. But unless the Constitution also reminds them of their promise, the pressure to nip, to tuck, and do much more to Social Security could be unstoppable. This constitutional amendment for balancing the budget is not just a statement of support for the idea. It is a plan to put the Federal budget on a speeding train. It will require something in the neighborhood of $1 trillion in spending cuts over 7 years. Just imagine what Congress will have to consider when the clock on those 7 years starts ticking. You can just hear the talk already. Social Security has to be on the table. How can we get $1 trillion or more without all of the entitlements--without Social Security, without Medicare, without benefits for disabled veterans? Mr. President, I actually don't know how. I believe that the worst part of this constitutional amendment is the fact that its very proponents don't know how they will rush their way to its destination. And because I see Social Security as just one of the sacred trusts that might get town up on the way, I don't support this idea. But the Reid amendment is one way to keep Social Security off the track of a train that could very well mow down any number of things important to the lives, the hopes, the expectations of our people--from vaccinations for children to home health care for seniors to the way we repay our debt to disabled veterans. As my colleagues think about the underlying legislation and the more immediate vote on the Reid amendment to protect the Social Security trust funds, I urge you to take a look at letters from seniors in you State to get a sense of what is at stake. I have, and it is sobering. Skip the impersonal postcards generated by interest groups. Skip the form letters when people's names roll out of computers. But take the time to pick up the personal letters, with scrawled handwriting, from senior citizens who are truly frightened about, what will happen to them if the Social Security trust fund is unprotected and this balanced budget amendment passes. I have hundreds of such letters, and let me paraphrase the style. Take a letter I got that starts with: * * * I am 69 and worked every day of my life until I had to retire. I paid into Social Security since the beginning. I collect $600 or $800 in Social Security a month, but my bills are more than that * * * I have letters where seniors from my State painstakingly list their monthly expenses--rent, heat, food, and prescriptions. They ask me what can they do if Social Security or Medicare is cut? Where can they turn in the twilight years of their lives? I don't know what to tell them. And I ask my colleagues who support the balanced budget amendment, and who oppose the Reid amendment, what do you tell the senior citizens of your States? I can only tell West Virginians that I keep fighting to uphold the promise made to them--the benefits they earned by contributing to the Social Security system throughout their working years and careers. Over a quarter of a million West Virginia senior citizens rely on Social Security benefits, and nationwide almost 30 million seniors get benefits. For many, their monthly Social Security check is the difference between poverty and independence; the difference between buying groceries or going hungry. Thirty-eight percent of senior citizens are not living in poverty, thanks to Social Security. This is a tremendous achievement that we can be proud of, and should protect and continue. Our challenge, as I see it, is No. 1, to protect Social Security now for the seniors living on fixed incomes, and No. 2, to plan ahead to ensure that Social Security is there when the young workers contributing over 7 percent of the wages are ready to retire. Passing this constitutional amendment to balance the budget without the Reid amendment is one way to guarantee that we will fail to meet either of these challenges. We must protect the Social Security trust funds from becoming a pawn in a political debate over a balanced budget amendment, which sounds so reasonable and so simple. Here is an example where the devil lies in the future details. The details that the proponents refuse to spell out. When the right-to-know amendment was rejected, we were told in no uncertain terms that we are all to strap ourselves into the speeding train, and to stop worrying about what and who get trampled along the way. This does not say that over the next decade that Social Security will not need to change--it will. A recent report of its trustees clearly shows that a long-term solvency problem threatens the Social Security trust funds. If changes are not made, the trust funds will be exhausted in 2029. We have to begin working on solutions to this danger facing Social Security, to restore the integrity of the trust funds just as courageous members of this body did in the past, most recently through bipartisan legislation in 1983. But any change made to Social Security should be designed to strengthen the trust funds--not to surrender to the speed-chase started recklessly by this constitutional balanced budget amendment. This balanced budget amendment is a game. It allows politicians to promise to be deficit hawks without requiring a single clue on what they will actually cut. And because I fear, for the people of West Virginia, what the hidden agendas are in this amendment, I support this explicit method for making absolutely sure that Social Security is left alone. There is no other way that the senior citizens can count on their benefits. There is no other way that the millions of working men and women who put aside part of their income every week, every month, every year for Social Security, can be sure that they will see a dime of it back when they retire.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Senate, not only as a Senator representing the State of West Virginia, but also in my capacity as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. To repeat a point I made before this body last Thursday, I still do not understand why so many of my colleagues want to add another page or even more to the U.S. Constitution to force us to do the job we were sent here to get done. From the day I entered the Senate, and saw the way the Federal deficit was growing out of control, I braced myself for the decisions and the public, out-in-the-open votes that would be required to deal with our budget crisis. Making actual cuts in programs and benefits is hardly ever easy--they almost always take something away from someone. but that's what our job requires. And that is why just 50 of us voted less than 2 years ago to enact a record level of real, actual deficit reduction. We did not need to clutter the Constitution to enact a more responsible and fair budget. And to speak to today's question, I cannot emphasize enough how enormously troubled I am by the idea of using the Constitution to force $1 trillion or even $1.4 trillion in more cuts without West Virginians or the rest of the American people having any idea where those cuts would be made. At the moment, I want to speak not only for the people of my State, but for the 202,200 West Virginians who are veterans--and for the 26,364,900 veterans across the country. Mr. President, the veterans of West Virginia and the United States of America have the right to know. They have the right to know what this proposed amendment to the Constitution will do to the services and benefits that come to them because they once served, or fought, or even physically suffered to stand up for the very rights that our Constitution stands for. What a cruel irony it will be if Congress revises the Constitution to break faith with the very men and women who have served their country so faithfully. It is not that veterans have excluded themselves from dealing with the country's fiscal problems. Sitting on the Veterans Affairs Committee, I have heard the leaders of veterans organizations repeatedly tell us they are willing to do their fair share in solving the Nation's problems, and that includes the Federal deficit. In fact, veterans made a major contribution to the package that we enacted in 1993. That deficit reduction plan required $2.6 billion in savings in veterans' programs, spelled out on paper for anyone and everyone to evaluate, debate, support, or oppose. The difference between the 1993 deficit-cutting plan and this constitutional amendment is that the former told veterans, in my State and across this country, what Congress felt had to be done to cut waste and reduce Government spending--where the latter, this balanced budget amendment, may as well say, ``Sign now, pay later.'' There is not a clue in this amendment to even hint at what will happen to veterans' compensation, pensions, health care, widows' benefits, prosthetics, education, and claims processing. Not one word. That is why we want to attach a Right-to-Know ``rider'' on the business before us. We are simply saying a better, more honest policy is for the proponents of the balanced budget amendment to first show upfront who will pay, and when and how, and then we can talk about signing at the bottom line. I have said before, and I continue to say, that we in this body owe the American people a clear explanation of where the trillion dollars or more of cuts will come from, not vagueness about where they might come from or whether taxes will be increased or decreased. We owe those who have served and sacrificed for this country, the more than 26 million veterans from coast to coast, a clear explanation. They have at least earned the right to hear the full truth. The Federal Government's agencies and experts are struggling to forecast what impact this constitutional amendment might have on Americans. Most sources from the Government or private organizations say that the size of the cuts required will be unprecedented--immense in scope. Because the budget would have to be balanced in 7 years, one- third of programs from anticrime efforts to Medicare may have to be eliminated. That is a figure, a number: one-third. In the real world, that figure translates into less police and fewer prison cells. It means seniors finding out their stopped paying. It means rural hospitals going under when payments aren't keeping up with the cost of providing the world's greatest medical care I always hear about on this floor when we try to enact health care reform. And today, I want to talk about what all this might mean to our Nation's veterans. I have sometimes told veterans that when you are a veteran yourself, or when you work at the VA or volunteer for a veteran's service organization, you do not need to be reminded about the sacrifices of those who served in our Armed Forces. It is part of your daily life-- and it is very easy, Mr. President, to begin to think that everyone thinks about veterans, and the veterans community. But it is not always the case. Veterans have carried the torch of freedom proudly from one generation of Americans to the next, by their courage in war, in defense of America--and by their dedication in peace to keeping America strong. So how exactly will this constitutional amendment affect veterans? I do not see a single provision in this proposal to exempt veterans' benefits and services, like monthly compensation for disabled, service- related veterans. I cannot find any large or even fine print that gives one single clue on how veterans' programs will be cut, where they will be cut, when they will be cut. Make no mistake about it. Veterans' benefits will have to be on the cutting table under a balanced budget amendment that tries to get the job done in the next 7 years. The contract made to veterans will have to be rewritten to rush this quickly and this blindly toward the Promised Land. Let us talk just a minute about veterans' benefits, Mr. President. We hear a lot about them. What exactly do we mean when we say ``veterans' benefits''? First, there is service-connected disability compensation. This compensation is paid to veterans who were injured while in service to this country. It is a benefit valued perhaps more than any other in VA. Why? Because our Nation recognizes and respects, as we should, the commitment we made to those who gave up their livelihood, left their homes, agreed to risk their lives for their country, and suffered an injury while doing it. Many never came home. Who here intends to break our contract with the disabled men and women who have served their country and risked so much? When commenting recently on the Contract With America, the Secretary of VA, Jesse Brown, said, ``America already has a contract, if not a sacred thrust, with its 26 million veterans who have honorably and faithfully served their country.'' Veterans with low incomes get help through a pension program. It differs from compensation in that it is a needs-based program. It is available only to a totally disabled veteran who served during wartime and though not injured while in service, suddenly finds himself or herself in need of help just to survive. And with the amount of money the Government pays them under this program now, it is all they can do to survive. Jesse Overbaugh and his family in Richwood, WV, are a good example of how a pension works. Jesse was ill this past year with serious circulatory problems and unable to work. He and his wife, Lucena, still had four children living at home. Jesse is a Vietnam combat veteran who was awarded the Bronze Star. The VA was able to help the Overbaughs until they began receiving other help. The family received a monthly check for $1,296 from VA. Not much money for a family of six, but it was all the help they could get at the time--and the least our government could do for a man who risked his life in Vietnam. Do the proponents of this constitutional amendment want to tell Jesse Overbaugh and his family to expect to lose a third of that pension? Or what does the Senator from West Virginia tell them about how this amendment will affect them? They have a right to know, and I would like to know. When we combine the amount of money VA spends on compensation, pension, and education, it makes up almost 50 percent of the total VA budget. Many people do not realize that. Yes, the budget can be balanced in 7 quick years through a plan that includes slashing veterans' benefits by 30 percent. That is, indeed, an option. But it is not this Senator's idea of a just or responsible plan. The veterans and families of my State and this Nation have a right to know what exactly is being contemplated to get the budget balanced this quickly. Is one idea to break promises--our contract--with the men and women who agreed to risk their lives for freedom at home and around the world? As I stand here today, let us think about reducing our debt--by a third--to the veterans of the 11th Airborne who 50 years ago this past weekend parachuted into the mountains outside of Manila as part of the operation to liberate the Philippines. What do the proponents of this amendment have to say to these veterans and their families, as we debate a constitutional amendment to balance the budget that does not include a single detail on how the job will get done? Last year, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the GI bill, often referred to as the most comprehensive legislation ever passed. Twenty million veterans benefited from its programs. In keeping with that tradition, over 380,000 service members and veterans received benefits from the Montgomery GI bill just in 1994. The veterans still counting on this help to attend college or more education have a right to know. It is time to tell them, many of them Persian Gulf veterans, to give up on that hope? If this program is cut by a third, there will be $258 million less in return for the contributions they made to their education. Shouldn't someone be telling them that Congress may be on the verge of breaking this contract with them? How about our contract with America's military widows? How do you tell the widow of a disabled veteran who died as a result of his service-connected injuries, that her monthly income will be cut from $769 a month to $539? That is less than $7,000 a year. These are not rich people--these are the sons and daughters of America, people often on the margin. We need to remember the price that is paid by those who are left behind during a time of war and world conflict, those left behind to worry--to wonder--to wait. The wives, daughters, and mothers; the fathers, sons, and brothers. War leaves its mark on all of them. They, too, have the right to know what this proposed amendment to the Constitution will mean to them. Recent surveys show that between 250,000 and 600,000 veterans are homeless each night. Imagine--some 250,000 veterans on any given night living on the streets or in shelters. These figures are absolutely staggering. Outrageous. I want to remind my colleagues that in 1994, 20,200 homeless veterans received assistance in VA regional offices, shelter sites, and on the streets. How many homeless veterans are living in Maine--in Florida--in New Mexico, or Oregon? My colleagues may not be hearing from homeless veterans. There are good explanations for that. Like not even having the pen and paper or the money for a phone call to be in touch. We will know soon enough, if this amendment is attached to the Constitution, just how serious the problem of homeless veterans is in every State. The States and communities that don't want unfunded mandates will be handed an immense, unfunded shift in responsibility for veterans living on the streets and grates. There is not one hospital, one vet center, one outpatient clinic, one veterans' home or domiciliary, that will be safe. If we put the budget on this speeding train, it may have to trample any one of these. I cannot say which veterans hospitals will be hurt the most by the cuts. Because this constitutional amendment does not come with details like that. I can only guess. I can speculate that hospitals in rural States and communities will be especially vulnerable. Then I think about small States like Delaware. Would the veterans of Delaware lose their only VA hospital? Or other rural States where VA medical centers provide health care to thousands of lower income people who have no place else to go? Medical centers like those at Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that tables from the 1994 Annual Report of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs showing the number of patients receiving inpatient and outpatient medical care, broken down by State and facilities, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for his courtesy. Mr. President, as I struggle to get over my disbelief that we are back at this, I rise once again to express my views of a constitutional balanced budget amendment. The basic reasons I oppose this amendment are the same ones that led me to vote against it on the two previous occasions--since I joined the Senate--that it has been before this body. Congress does not need the U.S. Constitution to perform its responsibility for the Federal budget. We were elected to make the decisions about where to spend the hard-earned tax dollars of Americans, and where not to spend those dollars. We were elected to make the decisions required to adapt to the country's needs and to keep us militarily and economically strong. We do not need to add another page to the Constitution to do our job. And some of us have worked very hard in the recent years to, in fact, do the job of digging out from the exploding deficits of the 1980's, reducing the deficit, and changing the priorities of the Federal budget in order to cut waste and increase investment in America's future. I have cast many votes in the recent years for actual cuts, for detailed changes in policy, and for specific budget plans--all the time, watching many colleagues vote the other way because somehow those specific ideas just weren't quite palatable or perfect enough for him. It is no accident that the Federal deficit will drop this year for the third year in a row, for the first time in 50 years. The deficit finally started to shrink because instead of waiting to get the Constitution to tell us to cut spending and require some fiscal discipline, we did it ourselves. I want to see the Federal budget balanced, too. But I refuse to strap the Federal budget into a speeding train, having no idea who and what in my State of West Virginia that train will crush. I got elected to help steer that train, to help set its speed, and to adjust its route-- so we can change course when we need to deal with less than minor matters like recessions, natural disasters, military crises, and other dire needs or situations. As a former Governor of West Virginia, I am shocked every time I hear proponents of the constitutional amendment say ``this is just doing what States have to do.'' That is completely and utterly wrong, and it is insulting and misleading to the American people. Every Governor and every State government has tools, outside of its operating budgets, to borrow and to invest. Through bonds and other methods, States can build and repair roads, improve schools, and lay the ground for the needs of their people. Under this constitutional amendment for a Federal balanced budget, that would not be possible. This proposal is nothing less than a straitjacket that just might suffocate the prosperity and economic growth that determines whether there are jobs and opportunity for Americans. This is where economics is not just about textbooks or abstract theories. To eliminate the Government's ability to stimulate the economy or to intercede in a crisis is to create a recipe for disaster. Whether economic growth were strong or weak would be ignored in the name of a balanced budget. Recessions would be more frequent, longer, and tougher to pull out of. Large spending cuts or tax hikes would be required in times of slow growth, just when the opposite is called for because cutting Government spending or raising taxes slows the economy even more. Passing a balanced budget amendment would exaggerate rather than mitigate America's shifting economic fortunes. This year, I feel even more strongly that the constitutional balanced budget amendment is a bad idea whose time has not come. That is because there is another script that many of this amendment's proponents are working from this year. It is called a plan to generate tax cuts that are expected to cost between $400 and $700 billion over the same 7 years that this amendment would require a balanced budget. These are tax cuts that go far beyond relief for hard-working Americans and the middle class. You will find it in something called the contract for America, and it is a script that wants to stage the revival of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations--this time with the hope it will not pull the rug out from the rest of Americans like it did before. Well, Broadway should stick to bringing back old scripts, not Capitol Hill. In representing West Virginia, I don't want to see any revivals of past nightmares. When I was Governor, and watched Congress promise to balance the budget while cutting taxes, I saw what happened in living color. Our plants that shut down and threw working families of West Virginia into foreclosures and bankruptcies. Our kids who dropped out of college because tuition money had to go to their families' mortgage kept thermostats at 58 degrees because they could not afford heating oil. So when I say I want to see the hidden details of this balanced budget amendment, it is not for political reasons or academic curiosity. It is because of the contract I have with West Virginia. It is because now I am here, not in the State House, to cast my vote and say show us just how you are going to get this done. For those who want to put the Federal budget on this speeding train, where's your map? Who gets thrown off the train, and who gets to stay on? Will it be the programs and services that feed children, care for veterans, pay our rural hospitals, and keep our water clean and safe? Will the highways now being finished in my State--while other States got theirs paid for before us--end up being roads to nowhere because the money will run out? Will our seniors find out that Medicare cannot keep its promise just when they need health care? West Virginia has the right-to-know what the script will be this time. If it is to be a reprise of the 1980s, we are not buying tickets. We saw the unemployment rates or some of our counties soar over 50 percent. We lost $1.7 billion in aid--the largest per-capita in the Nation--almost $1,000 per person. We watched our plants close, we watched our hospitals shut services, we watched our schools work with fewer resources, and we were forced into a recession that the State is only now starting to pull out of. So West Virginia will not be trampled again. I understand the lure, the appeal, the aroma of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Write into the most sacred document of this Nation, one of the most venerable documents in the world, that we, the Congress, will require that expenditures made by the Federal Government do not exceed its revenues. But this is the classic case of putting the cart before the horse. In the real world, this promise means coming up with a total of $1 trillion in actual budget cuts over 7 years--years that are going to fly by very quickly. If those tax cuts for a lot of non-middle-class Americans get thrown onto the equation, we are talking about $1.4 trillion in spending cuts. Then, if Social Security is excluded, defense is given special protection, and there are few other untouchables, what exactly does $1.4 trillion in budget cuts mean to the people of West Virginia--and to the people of the other States? Just when West Virginia is getting up from the beating we took over a decade ago, we face this. Just as our industries and workers are standing up to the challenges of the new economy, determined to make it, we face this. This amendment, with those added tax cuts, threatens to pull $2.7 billion away from West Virginia. That means much less for education, job training, housing, health care, student loans, veterans services, you name it. That means less to feed schoolchildren, support our police, invest in our university research. Even some proponents of the balanced budget amendment are realizing that, this time--as a new car called $400-billion-plus of tax cuts is hitched onto the speeding train--this time, we all better know what the route consists of. For example, it is not possible to achieve $1.4 trillion in cuts without squeezing unprecedented amounts of money out of Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans health care and benefits. It is just not possible. The Senate Budget Committee staff have even acknowledged that $644 billion will have to come somehow from the so-called entitlement programs--except for Social Security--over the next 7 years to hurl the budget into balance. Maybe the nightmares will not happen. Maybe seniors will not find benefits cut off. Maybe the veterans hospitals can stay open. Maybe we will not just give up on immunizing poor children. But maybe not. We could be sending people over cliffs with this train. Again, that's why I add my voice to the right-to-know idea. The proponents of this amendment have an obligation to think through what course they will take. Will it be a collision course for our economy, finally growing again, facing intense competition from other nations while working families can't seem to get their incomes up? Or maybe there's a map I haven't seen yet--one that accelerates the deficit reduction that I also want, but keeps the country and my State on an even course. Mr. President, the tools for deficit reduction are already in hand. Cutting wasteful and frivolous spending, creating a climate for productivity with accessible credit and sound trade policies, and keeping workers on the job. That's just common-sense deficit reduction. I will not change that stand until those who support this amendment can detail all the spending cuts and tax increases necessary to reach the promised land. Show my people the plan. Show Americans the specifics, so we can also debate how they will affect our economy. Show this Nation's hard-pressed families how they will send their kids to college when student loans disappear. Show American industry and workers how we will keep up with our competitors when we just give up on research that plants the seeds for the next wave of technology. Show Governors, State legislators, mayors how the greatest unfunded mandate of all time--this balanced budget amendment--will help them pick up the pieces. What happens when States and communities do not get the funds to fight crime, train teachers, promote their exports, or repair their bridges? We watched some of this show already, and it was a huge flop. In the 1980's, we watched arbitrage kings and junk-bond peddlers make fortunes while factories padlocked their gates and cast workers into the cold. We saw a nation divided into winners and losers as budget efforts took from those who could give least and asked little, if anything, from those who had the most. The middle-class worked harder just to keep up, the poor got poorer with less chance to get ahead, and the rich rode first class as they profited. In the recent years, and I do not just mean the past 2 years under a Democratic President, I thought Congress was figuring out that it was time to take a different approach. No more games, no more empty promises. If we deserve to be here, we have to make real choices and honest decisions. When enough of us started doing that, then and only then did the Federal deficit start to shrink. The job is far from done, and it is not getting any easier. But by working out a balance between what must be done to invest in our people and use their hard-earned tax dollars more wisely, we have a course that I see as far less reckless and dangerous than strapping this amendment onto the U.S. Constitution. The balanced budget amendment is a quick-fix for a problem that has grown because of quick-fixes. West Virginia does not deserve any repeats of a cruel and unfair past. So spell it all out for us--every spending cut and every tax--and show us where the money to balance the budget this quickly, with constraints that not a single State government is under, will come from. Until you can, do not ask West Virginia to sign on. We know the old saying, ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' And we will not get fooled again. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I believe that many senior citizens will be confused by the floor debates and amendments on Social Security offered last week during debates on the unfunded mandates legislation, and in the future in regard to the balanced budget amendment. Such confusion is understandable. Both sides tend to claim to be protecting Social Security. Last week, I voted for Senator Harkin's amendment to the S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, instead of Senator Kempthorne's amendment, because I believed that the language of the Harkin amendment was much stronger language to protect Social Security trust funds if a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is adopted. Personally, I oppose a balanced budget amendment, and I hope that over the course, of time people will understand how such an amendment will affect programs that are vital to the citizens in their States and that such a balanced budget amendment will not be added to the Constitution. But because the fate of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget remains unclear, the Harkin amendment is a very important symbol of the intention of the Senate not to jeopardize or play games with Social Security or use the Social Security trust fund in calculations to balance the budget. I voted last week for Senator Harkin's amendment which says that Social Security should be exempt in any calculations required by a balanced budget. I did it to protect the Social Security trust funds and to reassure senior citizens who rely on Social Security benefits. My record in fighting to protect Social Security and senior citizens is clear.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am introducing today the proposed Veterans' Tax Fairness Act of 1995. I am enormously pleased that a number of my colleagues, both members of the committee and others, have joined me as original cosponsors of this important measure--Senators Tom Daschle, Bob Graham, Daniel Akaka, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Jim Jeffords, Pat Leahy, and Jeff Bingaman. This bill would clarify and reiterate the longstanding rule that veterans benefits are not taxable--a rule that, until action taken in 1992 by the Internal Revenue Service, had never been questioned. On February 27, 1992, the Internal Revenue Service, in a letter to the general counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs, reinterpreted a 1986 law and reached a conclusion that could jeopardize the historical tax-exempt status of many veterans benefits, including various benefits provided to service-disabled veterans, dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors, veterans and survivors pensions, education benefits under the Montgomery GI bill, and veterans medical care. The IRS ruling addressed a narrow issue of whether veterans must pay taxes when VA forgives a debt the veteran owes to the Federal Government after VA pays a guaranty on the Veteran's home loan. Congress liberalized the criteria for VA debt waivers in 1989. In the February 1992 opinion, IRS interpreted a 1986 tax code provision as requiring taxation of any debt waiver granted under the 1989 law that would not have been granted under the old law. IRS concluded that any modification or adjustment of a veterans benefit would make the benefit taxable. Mr. President, our committee strongly disagreed with the IRS interpretation, for reasons stated in a May 13, 1992, letter from then- Chairman Alan Cranston to then-Secretary of the Treasury Nicholas F. Brady. Mr. President, although the IRS opinion attempts to address only the narrow question of the taxability of VA debt waivers, its conclusions could support IRS assessing taxes for many other veterans benefits that have been modified or adjusted after September 9, 1986. Since 1986, for example, Congress has expanded and increased education benefits paid under the GI bill on rehabilitation benefits provided to disabled veterans; adjusted the categories of eligibility for VA medical care; overhauled the survivors Dependency and Indemnity Compensation [DIC] Program and made several adjustments in the rates of DIC; expanded various health care services; and increased other benefits, such as housing and service-connected disabilities. The IRS interpretation would exempt adjustment based on an inflation index, but fails to protect the many VA benefits that are adjusted without reference to an index. Under the February 27, 1992 IRS opinion, any of these modifications or adjustments might have made the benefits involved taxable. Section 5301 of title 38, United States Code, explicitly exempts veterans benefits and services from taxation. The provision of the tax code interpreted by IRS concerns military benefits, and it seems clear to me that Congress did not intend to make veterans benefits taxable for the first time in our Nation's history through enactment of a tax code provision addressing military benefits. Veterans benefits, provided to veterans and their survivors under laws administered by VA, always have been distinct from military pay and benefits provided to active-duty or retired servicemembers under laws administered by the Department of Defense. In fact, Mr. President, another tax code provision, section 136, explicitly references the title 38 provision exempting veterans benefits from taxation. I am not aware of any previous suggestion that the tax code section that IRS has interpreted was intended to make veterans benefits taxable. If Congress had wanted to make such a radical change in the tax-exempt status of veterans benefits, it certainly would have done so much more explicitly than through an ambiguously worded provision that does not even mention veterans or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Mr. President, it is clear that, before February 1992, in previous administration had interpreted this tax code provision to require taxation of veterans benefits. During the almost 7 years since the provision took effect, IRS has not collected or attempted to collect any taxes based on the receipt of VA-administered benefits--even in connection with VA debt waivers, which the IRS opinion had concluded could be subject to taxation in certain circumstances. In fact, every official IRS publication of which I am aware that mentions veterans benefits, including ``Publication 17--Your Income Taxes'' and a 1988 IRS private letter ruling, explicitly states that veterans benefits are not taxable. Many IRS publications even list all available veterans benefits to indicate that each is nontaxable. Mr. President, in 1992, the committee found a very receptive ally in then-Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who chaired the Finance Committee. Senator Bentsen successfully inserted a version of our clarifying legislation into 1992's tax bill, H.R. 11. Unfortunately, President Bush vetoed H.R. 11. Mr. President, during the last Congress, efforts were made, both by the administration--where Senator Bentsen was then serving as Secretary of Treasury--which submitted proposed legislation substantively identical to H.R. 11, and by me in the introduction of such legislation in S. 1083, to replicate the success we had with H.R. 11. Unfortunately, no action was taken on that legislation during the 103d Congress. The legislation I am introducing today is substantively identical to H.R. 11, the legislation recommended by the administration last Congress, and to S. 1083, and I am hopeful that action will be taken on it in the first appropriate tax legislation. I believe it is vitally important to reiterate and clarify by statute the tax-exempt status of all veterans benefits and services, in order to preclude any future tinkering with these most fundamental benefits, particularly in the current climate of anything goes in the name of deficit reduction. Mr. President, it is obvious that, since IRS previously has not collected or attempted to collect taxes on veterans benefits, this legislation will not affect Federal revenues. Mr. President, in closing, I acknowledge and thank Senator Moynihan and the fine Finance Committee staff for the technical assistance provided in connection with the development of this measure. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and pledge to do all I can to see it enacted quickly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the health, safety, and labor laws that now protect workers in the private sector should cover the Federal Government. Applying these laws to the Congress is a long overdue reform which has my total support. I am disappointed that I am not able to be in Washington this week to participate in this important legislation. However, I am conducting very critical business for the people of West Virginia that I felt could not be put aside. Early last year, I initiated plans to lead a large trade and investment mission to Japan and Taiwan beginning January 7. The mission was scheduled for this time to make sure it would take place when the Congress was not in session. Unfortunately, the congressional schedule was changed at the last minute by the new leadership, long after plans for this important mission had been finalized and could not be changed. The mission, known as Project Harvest, includes 27 business leaders from important and different West Virginia industries. Working with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the State of West Virginia, the Discover the Real West Virginia Foundation is coordinating our search for export opportunities and high-paying, secure jobs for our State. It is, I believe, a historic journey that will reap benefits to the people of West Virginia for many years to come. I am proud to be able to lead this historic Project Harvest mission on behalf of the people of West Virginia, but regret that it takes me from Washington during this time when we are considering the Congressional Accountability Act. In the current rush to reform, we should not overlook that this bill is almost identical to legislation drafted by Senators Glenn, Lieberman, and Grassley in the last Congress. That legislation, known as the manager's amendment to H.R. 4822, was blocked from consideration in the Senate by stealth objectors. What is now taking place is enactment of legislation previously blocked by those who have finally ``seen the light'' in the need for this reform. In the coming months, I am sure we will see other conversions from the obstructionism that we saw so frequently in the last Congress to an eagerness to take action. It's unfortunate that Americans had to wait. Mr. President, I am proud that the people of West Virginia have seen fit to send me to represent them in the U.S. Senate. There are many dedicated and good people who are elected and appointed to serve here. As we press forward to review and reform, we must be mindful to those who have preceded us, and the legacy we will leave to those who follow. the Constitution who provided for independence between the branches of Government. We have the solemn responsibility to preserve and defend that independence. None among us takes that charge more seriously that the senior Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] who has raised reasonable concerns about the provisions of this bill which will permit investigations and review of the Congress by other branches of the Government. We should all be wary of what could become improper meddling in the constitutional system. I share those concerns, and believe we can fully preserve a proper balance of powers between the legislative, the judicial, and the executive branches of Government, and at the same time, better protect our staff. I am satisfied that this legislation strikes the necessary balance. I commend the sponsors of this bill, and am thankful to Senator Ford for his leadership in reminding us of our institutional responsibilities. Mr. President, another of our responsibilities in the Senate is to carefully review and improve what may be popular legislation which often receives less careful scrutiny in the other body. I am astonished, for example, that so many of my colleagues rejected the efforts in the past few days to strengthen and improve the Congressional Accountability Act. Why should we not seek to finally gain enactment of long-delayed gift-ban legislation, approved last year, and then blocked from final passage in the final days of that session? What better time to limit undue influence than this legislation to improve the workings of the Congress? I certainly support this and other amendments aimed at improving the operations of the Congress. Unfortunately, all of these improving amendments were rejected in the past week. I note that none of these votes has been close, and that my vote would not have changed the outcome of any proposed amendment. Mr. President, solving the problems of my people in West Virginia has my total attention. That is why I have worked so very hard over the past three decades to find and bring well-paying, secure jobs to our State, and why I now am away from the Senate. In a changing world and global economy, our State will need to look far beyond its borders to find the resources we will need to create long-term employment and prosperity. I take seriously my duty to participate in the proceedings of the Senate, and to exercise the opportunity afforded me to cast my vote for West Virginia on the Senate floor. I am hopeful that the people of my State will realize how very seriously I take my responsibilities to make our State a better and more prosperous place to live. Sponsoring and leading a delegation of West Virginia business people to Japan and Taiwan is part of that effort, and I wanted to insert this explanation of my absence in the Senate and why I felt it could not be avoided.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, giving American workers the opportunity to get the education and training they need to effectively compete in our modern workplace and highly competitive economy must be a priority. That is why I am joining Senator Daschle in introducing S. 6, the Working Americans Opportunity Act, and I commend him and my other colleagues involved in developing this important initiative. While there are numerous Federal training programs in existence, there also are some valid questions about how effective these efforts are. It is time to deal with these questions and make the changes necessary to ensure that our programs work more efficiently and effectively, both for the participants and the American taxpayers who are footing the bills. The Working Americans Opportunity Act is an important step in the right direction to improve our Federal training programs. This effort is designed to streamline existing Federal training programs and give participants more say over their job search process and training. The bill also proposes a critically needed investment in a ``national labor market information system'' so people can get their hands on current information that will tell them what fields offer real job opportunities. The bill promotes ``one-stop career centers'' to help Americans sort through training and career information in one place so they can make more organized decisions about their future. In cosponsoring this bill, I want to emphasize my continued belief that America's--and West Virginia's--battle for the best jobs in world depends partly on our workers having the best skills and education. Competing in the global economy is a permanent fact of life. And both workers and the unemployed in West Virginia want to get the training they need to have good jobs. But I also want to register a note of caution about the bill's use of ``vouchers'' as the way to link workers with training. I have some questions about this concept, because I do not want to see them turn into ``coupons'' for training that is not up to standard. Neither workers nor the American taxpayers will be well served if the new system does not assure high quality training in fields with real job opportunities. Achieving this goal will require a delicate balance and strong quality assurance within the new system. Throughout the legislative process, I will be working to further strengthen this legislation and promote education and training of the best quality for American workers. Training and education are especially key issues for West Virginia and other regions still struggling with unemployment rates above the national average and facing major industrial restructuring. I know from experience that West Virginians are eager to work and willing to learn new skills in order to meet the challenges of our increasingly competitive work place. It is essential to ensure that Federal training programs meet such needs and provide real opportunities to workers who have been dislocated from their careers. Our entire country benefits when an American worker gains new skills and becomes more productive so it is essential to invest in effective Federal training programs. The Working Americans Opportunity Act is a step in the right direction, and sends a strong signal about the need to move forward.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, for years, as Governor of West Virginia and as a U.S. Senator, I have advocated changes to our welfare system so that it promotes work and responsibility. I am proud to continue these efforts by joining Senator Daschle and other colleagues in sponsoring S. 8, the Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Parent Responsibility Act. This legislation is an essential step that builds on the Family Support Act of 1988 in reforming our welfare system. It emphasizes parental responsibility and makes real reforms designed to address the issues of teen pregnancy. As noted in the final report of the bipartisan National Commission on Children, unmarried teenage mothers often lack the maturity, economic means, and parenting skills to care for themselves and their children. For West Virginia, this issue is of major importance. According to the 1993 West Virginia Kids Count, births to unmarried teens has increased by 60 percent between 1980 and 1991 in my State. The percentage of births to unwed teen parents is tragically a predictor of economic hardship for both mother and child. This trend must be reversed for the sake of teens, children, and our future. This bill boldly confronts this concern by requiring unwed mothers under the age of 18 to live with an adult family member or in a supervised group home in order to receive Federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC]. Unwed teen mothers would also be required to stay in school and complete their high school education in order to receive benefits. If substance abuse is a problem, unwed teen mothers would have to seek counseling. These are major changes designed to help both unwed teen mothers and their children. It is an effort to try and ensure that a caring adult is involved with both teen parent and infant. Also, it is one of the toughest initiatives yet to ensure that teenage mothers stay in school and get the education they will need to avoid a lifetime of dependency. There is broad consensus about the need to change our welfare system from a program that can inadvertently trap families in a lifetime of dependency into a transitional assistance program that fosters work and responsibility. But there are major questions about how to achieve this goal. As we debate a series of welfare reform proposals, I will judge each proposal by the fundamental question of how each change will affect both the poor parent and the child. Welfare reform should not punish vulnerable children or their parents. Reform should encourage self- sufficiency in firm but fair ways. Senator Daschle's legislation passes this test with flying colors. It will help both unwed teen parents and child by ensuring the involvement of an adult, and by keeping teens in school. Obviously, more work must be done to reform our overall welfare system since the Department of Health and Human estimates that teen parents are less than 10 percent of all families on welfare. But this legislation is a sensible first step focusing on unwed teen parents and it will hopefully help break a cycle of dependency early. In additional to the eligibility requirements for unwed teen parents to receive AFDC, the bill gives States and communities funding to invest in pregnancy prevention for at risk youth. The legislation is paid for in responsible ways including provision to strengthen child support enforcement, another key way to promote parental responsibility among absent fathers. Teenage pregnancy is a complicated issue facing our society, and there are no simple solutions or quick answers. But I believe that the Teenage Pregnancy Prevention and Parent Responsibility Act lays out needed change in Federal policy. Current Federal policy enables teen parents on welfare to establish their own independent household by offering them Federal assistance, but this legislation dramatically changes the rules and incentives. It sends a fundamental message to unwed teen parents to stay in school and seek help from caring adults, preferably their families. While this bill is not a silver bullet, it is a serious, substantive effort to ensure that Federal policy reflects American values for families and children.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the new Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle, along with Senator Kennedy, Reid, Mikulski, and Dodd in sponsoring a health care bill that would begin to give millions of Americans improved health security. While it should not come as a surprise to any of my colleagues that my preference would be to give all Americans guaranteed health care security, this bill includes important steps that will provide health security to some Americans through insurance reforms and, importantly, prioritizes health coverage for children and temporary assistance for workers in between jobs. S. 7 includes the essential building blocks for building a secure health care system. Moving ahead on health care reform was identified by Senate Republicans as one of their top seven legislative priorities for the 104th Congress prior to last November's election. Each and every major provision in S. 7 was included in every serious health care reform proposal introduced by both Democrats and Republicans over the past 2 years. I believe this bill reflects the consensus that emerged last year on where and how to get started on reforming our health care system. This past November voters did not tell Congress to put health care reform on the back burner. An election night survey found that health reform was identified by voters as a top priority issue for this Congress. According to the Kaiser/Harvard survey, ``health care was number one for voters in deciding who to vote for in the Congressional election, ahead of crime, and taxes.'' Fifty-six percent of voters said that Congress should take the lead in developing a health care reform plan. Only 20 percent of Americans said Congress should not try to see that more people have health insurance. Seventy-four percent said that Congress should either guarantee coverage for all groups who do not have health insurance. A majority of voters favored beginning with children first. Mr. President, special interests and election year politics managed to greatly distort last year's debate on health care reform. As a result, many Americans are nervous about extremely ambitious reforms. But voters remain overwhelming in favor of moving ahead on health care. Only 25 percent of voters said Congress should leave our health care system alone. If my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are truly interested in making a difference in the lives of middle-class Americans, if they are really interested in restoring peace of mind of millions of hard- working Americans, health reform is the way to do that. Millions of middle-class working families would benefit from the insurance portability provisions in this bill that would allow them to change health insurance plans when they change jobs without having to qualify for a new pre-existing condition exclusion. For people with lapses in their insurance coverage, they would only to be a subject to a one-time 6 month pre-existing condition exclusion period as long as they had continuous health coverage. For workers in between jobs, unable to afford health coverage, temporary health coverage would be available up to a maximum of 6 months. This would give millions of working families some piece of mind that they will not be forced to delay getting necessary medical care or being financially wiped out by even a minor injury or illness as they search for a new job. This bill would ban insurance companies from canceling policies or hiking premiums when someone gets sick or injured and incurs large medical bills. Under current insurance practices, young and healthy people often get deep premium discounts. Discounts that quickly disappear over time or when they or a family member gets sick. There are also large differences in premium rates based on a person's age, sex, occupation, even based on a person's zip code. This bill would begin to set limits on how much premiums can differ based on these factors. To minimize large swings in premiums during implementation of insurance rating reforms, this bill carefully and slowly phases-in its reforms. The prohibition on medical underwriting--which means charging people different premiums solely based on their health status--is phased-in over 3 years. At the same time, age bands are phased-in that would significantly narrow what insurance companies could charge people solely based on their age. All but a few states have already moved ahead on small group insurance reforms but national uniformity is important so that insurance is portable for consumers across state lines and also to ease compliance by insurance companies that do business in more than one State. Forty percent of States have even adopted some version of community rating or modified community rating laws. While there has been some serious concerns raised about some erosion of insurance coverage that occurred when the state of New York implemented community rating, it is very important to note that New York implemented its community rating law without any sort of phase-in period. Mr. President, I would like to emphasize to my colleagues that while coverage in the small group market in New York was estimated to have declined by 1.2 percent when community rating was implemented, the exact same percentage of people--1.2 percent--lost their health coverage the year prior to implementation of New York's rating reforms. Other states, such as Maine, New Jersey, and Vermont are experiencing net increases in coverage and other positive benefits from private insurance reform, such as a greater choice of products for small businesses to choose from. Last year, a study commissioned by the Catholic Health Association, estimated that about 1.1 million people could gain coverage through insurance reforms. This mostly includes people who currently are locked out of the insurance market because of their medical history. The reforms outlined in S. 7 would also provide predictability and stability to health premiums by limiting premium variability based on age, sex, health status, claims experience, occupation, and zip code. Cancer, a heart condition, or diabetes will no longer price working American families out of the insurance market. Mr. President, I am especially pleased that this legislation emphasizes and prioritizes children. Looking out for America's children is nothing new. This imperative has been recognized time and time again. A bipartisan majority of Pepper Commission members said 5 years ago that the first step to comprehensive reform should be to cover children and pregnant women. I also had the profound privilege of chairing the National Commission on Children that made a similar recommendation. I introduced a bill with Senator Hatch, 4 years ago, to suggest this very idea. It is incredibly important that children get early and regular health care. There is nothing more heartbreaking and more wrong about our country's health care system than putting parents in the position of trying to figure out whether or not they can afford to take a sick child to see a doctor. Mr. President, of the 204,000 West Virginians that do not have health insurance one third are children. About 64,000 West Virginia children-- about 94 percent of the uninsured children in my home state--would qualify for health insurance under this legislation. Mr. President, I would also like to take a second to remind my colleagues that job-based coverage for children has diminished significantly over the past decade and a half. Two thirds of children without insurance have at least one parent who works full-time while another 13 percent have a parent who works part-time. Having a job is just not an assurance of reliable health insurance coverage. The overall percentage of children with job-based insurance has dropped from 64 percent in 1987 to 59 percent in 1992--a decrease of 5 percent in just 6 years. Had coverage stayed at 1987 rates--more than 3 million children would have job-based coverage today. If current trends continue, only about half of our children will be covered by employer- sponsored coverage by 2000. If not for legislation enacted in the 1980's that expanded Medicaid coverage for poor children the number of uninsured children would be much, much higher today. Mr. President, just 15 years ago, 40 percent of employers paid for dependent coverage in full. Five years ago, only about one-third of employers did. A decline in employer contributions means that many hardworking families just end up doing without because they can't afford the extra dollars themselves. This bill will help those families get health coverage for their children. Not having health insurance reduces the number of times a child goes to the doctor. And not surprisingly, the frequency of doctor visits is directly correlated with a family's income. It is the low-wage working family making between $10,000 and $20,000 a year, barely able to make ends meet, whose children go to see a doctor least often. These are families who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but can't afford private health insurance. Even routine pediatric care can consume 10 percent of a low wage working family's annual income. Last year, the Finance Committee, on a bipartisan vote of 12-8, approved an amendment that would have accelerated and expanded coverage for children. Frankly, reforming our welfare system won't work unless we can make sure families won't be forced to quit their jobs in order to qualify for health benefits through the Medicaid program. I am pleased that my colleague from rural South Dakota also included important rural health provisions in this legislation. Most of the provisions included in the rural health section are identical to measures included in a rural health amendment I authored along with Senator Daschle last August. Our rural health amendment was nearly unanimously agreed to when offered to pending health care reform legislation on the Senate floor. Again, reflecting an overwhelming consensus in this area. I am also extremely pleased that this legislation will provide long awaited tax equity for self-employed individuals. Prior to January 1, 1994, the self-employed were allowed to deduct 25 families. Since expiration of this law last year, the self-employed are prohibited from deducting any of their insurance premiums. This bill would allow the self-employed to deduct 100 percent of their health insurance costs. Currently, incorporated businesses can deduct the entire cost of their health insurance policies. This was also a priority identified 5 years ago by the Pepper Commission and a measure that has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Mr. President, this legislation includes other important measures that have enjoyed popular and broad, bipartisan support, such as administrative simplification, patient confidentiality, malpractice reforms, and demonstration funding for the development of purchasing groups and telemedicine grants. I also share the commitment earlier stated by Minority Leader Daschle that this legislation if enacted would not contribute to the Federal deficit. As a member of the Finance Committee, I am committed to working on building a consensus for financing the coverage expansions for children, the temporarily unemployed, and tax equity for the self-employed outlined in this legislation. I sincerely hope that the 104th Congress will truly be historic and be remembered for enacting serious and long overdue health reforms.