William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest that the Senator just proceed on that basis.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for the constructive role he has played in the effort to bring the two sides together. Like him, I am optimistic that we are going to be able to fashion legislation that will satisfy the large majority on both sides of the aisle. I, frankly, can think of no legislation of more critical importance, both from the standpoint of enforcement of the legislation or statutes on the books, but also from getting a better bang for the taxpayers' buck. So, again, I congratulate and thank the distinguished Senator for his contribution. Mr. President, today marks a milestone in the effort to build a smarter, more effective regulatory process. From all quarters, Americans are calling for change from the often overbearing and counterproductive regulatory monolithic that has grown out of control these past couple of decades. President Clinton has admitted that many regulations, regulations that are costing our Nation billions of dollars, are bad regulations. George McGovern has described in brilliant detail how overbearing regulations put him out of business when all he was trying to fulfill was the dream of being an entrepreneur of owning his own New England inn. Economists are telling us that Federal regulations are costing our households some $6,000 annually, costing our country about $600 billion a year, and this at a time when our policies must be those that make our Nation competitive abroad, economically secure at home and confident within our families. Financial costs are not the only burden. As we move further into the information age, the old adage, ``Time is money,'' rings truer than ever before. Time alone is becoming one of America's most vital economic resources. In a competitive world of instant information, a world where time is measured in cyberseconds, businesses, entrepreneurs, service providers, researchers, scientists, farmers, and others must be able to accelerate their response time in providing their services and bringing new products to market. In our age of information, time is often the difference between profit and loss. But today, Federal regulations, like cholesterol clogging a vital artery, not only slow down the process but often disrupts it. Well over 5 billion hours--I repeat--well over 5 billion hours a year are spent by our private sector just trying to meet government paperwork demands. The legislation we are considering today, S. 343, the comprehensive regulatory reform act of 1995, is a real and workable solution to the problems being expressed on both sides of the aisle. That is why I am supporting this legislation. It is the most comprehensive reform of the regulatory process since the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. Since then, efforts to reform Federal regulations have been like a man trying to save himself by running up the aisle in the opposite direction on a runaway train. What this legislation does, Mr. President, is get that runaway train under control and places it back on the right track. This legislation substantially changes the requirements for the issuance of Federal regulations. It requires regulators to directly consider whether the benefits of a new regulation would justify its cost. Regulators who want to issue environmental and health and safety regulation regulations under this legislation have to make realistic estimates of the risks to be addressed. They have to disclose to the public any assumptions they make to measure the risk. The bill encourages agencies to set priorities to achieve the greatest overall risk reduction at the least cost. More generally, this bill requires agencies to review existing regulations, to be sensitive to the cumulative regulatory burden, and to select the most cost effective, market-driven method feasible. This, Mr. President, is smarter regulation. Smarter regulation benefits us all--our farmers, our businesses of all sizes; it benefits State and local government, and, most important, it benefits the consumer, the wage earner, the taxpayer, and the family. I support this legislation because it is a reform of Federal regulations, not a rollback. And the distinction is extremely important. I am an environmentalist and honored to be called an environmentalist. On this floor, I have fought many battles to stop ocean dumping and incineration, to preserve the northern coastal plain of Alaska, to protect forests and precious wildlife. I can say with pride that Federal regulations have made our air cleaner. They have made our water purer, and they have improved conditions in our cities, lakes, and along our shores. Regulation in itself is not bad. The problem is that the huge regulatory enterprise, like that runaway train, has gained so much inertia these past few decades that it is posing a real and dangerous threat to our future. What we are looking for is balance, and this legislation provides that balance. It will restore common sense to the regulatory process. This legislation helps us achieve necessary regulation in the most flexible and cost-effective way possible. We have learned with experience that regulations often have been more costly and less effective than they could have been. This legislation addresses that problem by making Government more efficient, more effective. I believe, as best they can, regulators should issue regulations whose benefits justify their cost. I believe that a fair, commonsense test requiring that the benefits of a regulation justify its cost should be consistent with environmentalism, not contrary to it. Environmentalists and conservationists have long recognized that we live in a world of limited resources. In this vein, we must use those limited resources to achieve the greatest benefit at the least cost. This is absolutely consistent with our objectives. Throughout my career, Mr. President, I have advocated reducing Government waste and inefficiency. I have led efforts to reduce waste in Government procurement practices, particularly in defense contracts. At the time, some critics suggested that I was undermining support for a strong military. How could I support a strong military, they asked, if I challenged the practices of the Department of Defense? The answer was simple. I pushed for reform to make the Department of Defense work better, reform to make it more efficient and effective in carrying out its mission. And toward this end, we have been successful. Our reform of the procurement process improved the department. DOD was strengthened as precious resources were spared to be used much more efficiently and effectively. In the same way, as a committed environmentalist, I want to reduce the inefficiency of the Environmental Protection Agency as well as other Federal agencies that serve the public interest. Some critics suggest that we cannot support strong cost benefit analysis, and the Dole-Johnston compromise bill requires and still favors protecting the environment, health and safety, but these critics are wrong. Without effective regulatory reform, the EPA and other agencies will not carry out their mission in an efficient and effective manner. Mr. President, this legislation simply requires commonsense in the regulatory process. We should require no less. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold hearings regarding the investigation of friendly fire incident during the Persian Gulf war. This hearing will take place on Thursday, June 29, 1995, in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Harold Damelin of the subcommittee staff at 224-3721.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to emphasize once more that the Roth- Biden amendment requires no new spending. It does not change any Federal transportation formula. It does not require a State to spend any money on Amtrak or intercity rail. It simply provides States with the flexibility to support Amtrak with funds they already qualify for, and it responds to a real need, a real need expressed by Governors around the country who are seeking the means to support Amtrak services that have been cut back. It promotes State responsibility in support of our national transportation system. Current prohibitions against using Federal funds for Amtrak frankly skews public policy away from a cleaner, cheaper option--intercity rail. Highway user fees, gas taxes, already go to fund many other surface transportation options from mass transit to hike and bike trails. Only intercity rail is cut off from those funds. States cannot now choose to support Amtrak with those funds. At the same time that they are losing Amtrak services, many of our States find themselves with unused surpluses and programs they do not need. So the goal of our highway bill is to increase State and local flexibility to improve the efficiency of our national transportation system. This amendment would promote that goal and remove what I believe to be an arbitrary restriction on States' transportation choices. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. That would be most satisfactory.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the amendment which I am offering today on behalf of myself and Senator Biden, as well as several other Members of the Senate, has a very simple and important purpose and that is to give States the much needed flexibility to use their CMAQ and STP funds for Amtrak passenger rail service. Since late last year, Amtrak has begun a much needed restructuring. The restructuring has required substantial participation by State governments in determining which rail lines will stay in service. While States currently have wide authority in allocating Federal transportation dollars--whether it be on pedestrian walkways, bikeways, buses, light rail, highway, and other intermodal and commuter-based transit needs, a damaging double standard exists which, by law, prevents States from utilizing these funds to improve, expand or simply maintain vital Amtrak service if they so choose. My legislation would eliminate this double standard and give States more flexibility in the way they use their transportation dollars. My amendment addresses a number of realistic and sensible ways States can be given this flexibility. Under my proposal, States would be allowed to use funds available in the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ] for passenger rail service. This program, created in the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act, provides an incentive to focus on transportation alternatives which reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and lower fuel consumption. Amtrak passenger rail service clearly meets these criteria, potentially better than any other transportation alternative currently available. My amendment would allow CMAQ funds for passenger rail service. Second, States would be allowed to use their Surface Transportation Program [STP] dollars for Amtrak passenger rail service. STP gives States and localities unprecedented flexibility in moving Federal dollars between modes. Currently, States are using these funds for carpool projects, parking facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. [[Page S 8764]] My amendment simply ensures that this flexibility is extended to States to use for Amtrak passenger rail service. In addition to these provisions, Mr. President, my amendment would permit States to enter into interstate compacts in support of Amtrak services. We know that it requires coordinated efforts among a number of States to make a regional passenger rail route possible. Those States could use Federal funds from the programs I just listed, or make use of bonding authority under the compact to support intercity rail services. Mr. President, the need for flexibility is clear. I have here, a letter signed by Governor Dean of Vermont, Governor Thompson of Wisconsin, Governor Engler of Michigan, and Tom Carper, Governor of my State of Delaware, both Democrats and Republicans. This letter supports my amendment. Let me read this letter. This letter went to Senator Baucus and to Senator Chafee, the chairman of the committee. This is from the four Governors, and it says: As you proceed with consideration of S.440, we want you to be aware our strong support for the right of states to use their federal transportation funds for rail passenger service. The amendment being offered by Senators Roth and Biden has our full and enthusiastic support. Under present law, we are not able to make use of our federal highway or transit funds for rail passenger service. This has posed a number of difficulties for our state in forming partnerships with Amtrak for these purposes, even when investments in rail passenger service would produce clear public benefits and improve the service quality of other modes of transportation. Adoption of the proposed amendment will provide states with the ability to decide what transportation system best meets their needs and to allocate their federal funds accordingly. In this time of severe budget constraints at all levels of government, it is essential that we empower state and local officials to make the best use of scarce federal resources. This is clearly a states' rights issue. We view this adoption of the Roth/Biden provision as part of S.440 as an extremely positive step in the direction of achieving a higher level of state choice and a more balanced transportation system. We look forward to working with you to ensure this result. As I said, this was signed by Governor Dean of Vermont, Governor Thompson of Wisconsin, Governor Engler of Michigan, and Governor Carper of Delaware. These Governors have already committed their own States' general revenues to support intercity rail routes, at the same time they have surpluses in Federal transportation programs that they are prohibited from using to maintain Amtrak services. These Governors have confirmed the need for more flexibility. California, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Vermont have also confirmed the importance of Amtrak. Mr. President, Congress has recognized the need for States to have flexibility with Federal subsidies in important local transportation decisions. In fact, the increased flexibility provided by this amendment is consistent with the major goals of the bill before us today. In an important sense, this amendment simply removes an inconsistency in earlier legislation. When ISTEA was enacted in 1991, a major premise of that legislation was to remove the unnecessary hurdles in the way of a national transportation policy. Fundamental to that landmark legislation was the realization that all the components of our transportation system must be allowed to work together, each making its own appropriate contribution. ISTEA provided unprecedented flexibility to States and localities to make use of Federal transportation funds to provide the mix most appropriate for local transportation needs. Adoption of my amendment would extend the irrefutable logic of that approach to passenger rail service. Mr. President, this legislation calls for no new spending. It does not change Federal transportation allocation formulas, nor does it mandate that States spend their Federal transportation dollars on passenger rail service. As I have said, it simply gives States the ability to spend Federal CMAQ and STP money as they see fit and in ways which have been repeatedly found to be good for them and good for the country. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague.

Mr. ROTH. How much time do I have left, Mr. President?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I think, to underline the point made by my distinguished colleague, it is important to understand, for example, in the case of New Jersey, the ridership in 1994 was 1,369,000; in Maryland, 1,448,000; in my little State of Delaware, 607,000. Is there any way we could replace that travel by building additional roads?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Subcommittee on Post Office and Civil Service, of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold a hearing on June 19, 1995, on Federal pension review. The hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact John Roots or Dale Cabaniss at 224-2254. committee on indian affairs

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. That is my understanding as well. The amendment would not exempt those states, like Delaware, that are part of a LATA that includes part of another state.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today the Associated Press broke a story that should take no one by surprise. The concern expressed on this floor as we debated reforming the Hatch Act was that without protection for Federal employees, a sitting President could coerce his appointees to contribute to his campaign. Today, we see from a wire story that the White House has laid the groundwork for the kind of coercion we predicted. A memo dated May 2 from White House Counsel Abner Mikva and addressed to ``Heads of all All Agencies and Departments''--a memo written on official White House stationery, states that the Hatch Act Reform of 1993 ``provided that civilian executive branch employees are no longer prohibited from making a political contribution to the reelection campaign committee of an incumbent President.'' The memo then asks the agency heads to share the information with employees inside their agencies. Frankly, Mr. President, I find this absolutely outrageous, and believe that this memo could be seen as setting up a coercive situation for executive branch civilian employees--something I warned against when we considered the so-called reform of the Hatch Act. The purpose of the Hatch Act was straightforward--to protect Federal employees from just this type of pressure. I fought tooth and nail against the repeal of provisions in the Hatch Act for just this reason. I find it interesting that of all of the changes made to the Hatch Act, contributing to the reelection campaign committee of an incumbent President is the change they chose to highlight. This memo is a glaring example of the abuses that can occur without the protection of the Hatch Act. When the White House asks agency and department heads to tell their employees that they may contribute to their boss' reelection, that clearly can be seen as coercion. Those employees may feel that their continued employment depends on contributing. Furthermore, that this was sent out on official White House stationary makes things even worse. What is an employee to think when he or she receives this information--this narrow information--concerning the changes to the Hatch Act All the changes were highlighted by the media when the act was reformed. Certain, Federal employees kept themselves abreast of the news. ``So why,'' one would have to ask, ``would the highest levels at the White House use official stationary to direct attention to only one of several changes in the law?'' ``Is it because the President wants to remind me that I serve at this leisure--and if I don't contribute, I may not serve?'' As Ann McBride, president of Common Cause says, ``There's just no way that a message comes from the White House and people don't feel some sense of implicit coercion.'' This is unfair to our Federal employees. At a time when the President is seeking to build goodwill and esteem among those who work in the bureaucracy, he shouldn't be strapping them with the bill for his reelection campaign.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. Yes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, when the time has expired, I intend to offer an amendment to prevent oil and gas leases to be made in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. President, a financial debt is not the only threat that hangs over the heads of future generations. There is an environmental debt, as well. We have a moral duty to give them a world that has clean water and clean air, and open vistas where wildlife runs free. One of the great birthrights of every American citizen is the wealth of superlative public lands. Unfortunately, the budget resolution before us today jeopardizes one of the most spectacular places in America: the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There is a provision in the budget that provides for oil and gas lease sales in this sanctuary. Located in the northeastern corner of Alaska, this unique piece of our natural heritage is bordered on the north by the Arctic Ocean and Beaufort Sea, and on the south by the snow-capped Brooks Range. As a lead sponsor of S. 428, the bill that designates the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness area, I am concerned by the provision in the budget proposal that uses revenues taken from sales of leases to drill the coastal plain. My concern arises on two levels: first, that the budget is assuming revenue from a pristine wilderness area; and second, that the revenue raised from drilling in this wilderness area will not amount to such an insignificant amount of money that it could easily be found elsewhere. Mr. President, as I've said before, the best thing we have learned from nearly 500 years of contact with the American wilderness is restraint, the need to stay our hand and preserve our precious environment and future resources rather than destroy them for momentary gain. For this reason, I have been active in the effort to designate the refuge coastal plain of Alaska as a wilderness area. And I am not alone. Only 4 years ago, Congress rejected the idea of sacrificing a prime part of our national heritage, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, for what would be a minimal supply of oil. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an invaluable region with wildlife diversity that has been compared to Africa's Serengeti. As I've said in earlier statements, the Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our Earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete spectrum of arctic and sub-arctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a vital part of our national consciousness. It is a place we can cherish and visit for our soul's good. It offers us a sense of well-being and promises that not all dreams have been dreamt. The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness, and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and glaciers, gentle foothills, and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich with Caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep, moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans, black brant, and more. In all, about 165 species use the coastal plain. It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give birth, nurse and feed their young, and set about the critical business of fueling up for winters of unspeakable severity. Addressing my second concern--that the revenue raised from drilling in this wilderness area will not result in such a significant amount of money that it couldn't be found elsewhere--let me say that the estimated revenue is only two-tenths of 1 percent of the total savings. And that's why I'm here today, to offer an amendment that will prohibit the leasing of the coastal plain of ANWR to pay for deficit reduction and to recommend that we pay for the loss in revenue with an offset that would come from taxing millionaire ex-patriots. I don't think there's any question that the small number of wealthy individuals who choose to renounce or relinquish their citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxes--or any other reason--are still responsible to pay taxes on the estate, income, trust and gift revenue they received while still Americans. My amendment to prohibit the sale of leases for oil and gas development in the coastal plain of ANWR is revenue neutral. The revenue loss of $2.3 billion over 7 years is fully offset by closing tax loopholes that have been used by wealthy Americans who renounce their citizenship. My amendment is consistent with the current law--with the dictates of Congress--law that prohibits oil and gas drilling in the coastal plain of ANWR. It is also consistent with agreements that we have made with Canada to preserve and protect this wilderness area, especially the habitat and culture of the native people who live in the area. My amendment prevents oil and gas leasing in the coastal plain of ANWR without hearings in Congress. It does not preclude future development of this area, but only prevents Congress from using these savings from oil and gas leasing in the current budget process. The coastal plain--where the oil and gas leasing would occur is the biological heart and the center of wildlife activity in the refuge. It is a critical part of our Nation's preeminent wilderness and would be destroyed by oil development. There are those who may think the northern coast of Alaska is too remote for us to worry about. I urge them to read the Congressional Records from the 1870's. The men who initially urged the Congress to protect a place called Yellowstone were subject to ridicule. Why, critics asked, should we forgo the opportunity to dig up minerals from the area? It's a remote place, and few Americans will ever venture there. Today, as we wrestle with America's future, let's be as far-sighted as that Congress eventually proved to be. Let's not cash in a unique piece of America for a brief, hoped-for rush of oil. Let's protect the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge-- forever. [[Page S7325]] Mr. President, this amendment will not allow revenues to be used in this budget that are supposed to come from doing something that Congress has not allowed. This is how it should be done. My amendment accomplishes this purpose. And I encourage my colleagues to support this important effort.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this is an historic moment--today we are closer than ever before to putting America's economic house in order. The last time Congress balanced the budget was 1969--more than a quarter-century ago. Since that time, and despite the will of the American people, Congress has been overdrawing the public checkbook year after year after year. Today the opportunity has come to put an end to out of control Federal spending--spending that has taken money from the private sector, the very sector that creates jobs and economic opportunity for all Americans, spending that gambles away our children's future-- spending that costs us jobs in the workplace and economic security in the home. For too long, Congress has faced the deficit dilemma like an errant alcoholic or perpetual dieter, with the words: We'll start tomorrow. Well, Mr. President, this is tomorrow, and the budget that Senator Domenici and others have crafted is the cure. It is the only cure. The President's budget proposals for next year offer clear evidence of the lack of political will to make the hard choices when it comes to cutting government spending. At first, his decision was not to fight for further deficit reduction this year. Now, because he sees what the House and Senate have done, he's revisited the issue, offering another watered-down proposal. It's kind of like the little boy who--wanting to bend the rules to benefit himself--holds his breath until he turns blue, then, realizing he can hold it no longer, tries to save face by renegotiating the rules of the game. This is no time for politics. The American people are crying out for a smaller, more efficient government. They are concerned about the trends that for too long have put the interests of big government before the interests of our families and job-creating private sector. They are irritated by the double standard that exists between how our families are required to balance their checkbooks and how government is allowed to continue spending despite its deficit accounts. It is clear, Mr. President. The time has come to heed the will of the people. It is our duty, not only to heed their will, but to act in their best interest. And that is what this budget is all about. It makes the hard choices, eliminating some 140 programs. It consolidates duplication and makes Federal programs run more efficiently, more effectively, placing many of the existing programs back in the States where they belong. The Republican budget also allows for a $175 billion reserve fund to finance tax cuts when the budget reaches balance. The budget holds Congress and the White House up as leaders--as examples in the effort to reduce government spending. Both the legislative and executive are required to reduce spending by 25 percent. This budget protects Social Security and Medicare--vital programs to the well-being of millions of Americans, but programs that would be bankrupt within a few years without the provisions offered in this budget. And, Mr. President, this budget does not cut those programs; spending continues to increase. What this budget does is slow down the rate of increased spending to a level that will allow the programs to survive! It is that simple, and do not let anyone tell you otherwise. Social Security spending will increase from $334 billion to $482 billion over the next 7 years. Medicare spending will increase at an average of 7.1 percent annually, rising from $178 billion this year to $283 billion by fiscal year 2002. This budget is the only workable answer on the table. President Clinton himself has warned about how these programs are going to be insolvent in the near future. Yet, he has offered no viable alternative. His most recent effort to counter the House and Senate budgets plan is little more than political twaddle. The Washington Post itself noted that this counter budget which we have yet to see is ironic in that just 3 months ago the President ``sent Congress a budget that increases the federal deficit.'' Mr. President, this is not a game. We are talking about real life, real jobs, real families and communities and the future of our children. Balancing the budget for our Nation is one of the most important steps we can take to ensure the economic opportunities for prosperity for our children and for our children's children. As a nation--and as individuals--we are morally bound to pass opportunity and security to the next generation. This is what the budget we are proposing today will help us do. As Thomas Paine has written, no government or group of people has the right to shackle succeeding generations with its obligations. Without this budget, children born today will have a tax burden of up to 84 percent of their lifetime earnings; without this budget, each child who owes $18,500 in his share of the national debt will find that obligation increasing to $23,000 in just 5 years. Without this budget, there will be no real and meaningful reduction in the size and overbearing power of the Federal Government. As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee I have outlined a plan to reduce the Federal bureaucracy, eliminate outdated and wasteful government programs, and to strengthen government's ability to better serve the taxpayers. In January I kicked off a series of hearings on ``Government Reform: Building a Structure for the 21st Century.'' It is my belief that as we move into the 21st century, so should our Government. Innovative technologies should allow us to cut out many layers of management bureaucracy, and reduce Federal employment. Programmatic changes should also occur. Last month I released a report that asked the GAO to examine the current structure of the Federal Government. The GAO examined all budget and government functions and missions. They did not conduct in- depth analysis, but [[Page S7369]] simply illustrated the complex web and conflicting missions under which agencies are currently operating. The GAO report confirms that our Federal behemoth must be reformed to meet the needs of all taxpayers for the 21st century. I am convinced that it is through a smaller, smarter government we will be able to serve Americans into the next century. Deficit spending cannot continue. We can no longer allow waste, inefficiency, and overbearing government to consume the potential of America's future. I am committed to spending restraint as we move to balance the budget by the year 2002. And I ask my colleagues--and all Americans--to support our efforts.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. ROTH. I yield the distinguished Senator 10 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield such time as I have remaining to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. ROTH. I will be happy to yield as much time as the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania may desire.