William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I hear someone talk about the largest debt. But let me point out that Congress, part of Congress, was Democratic, the House of Representatives. And I would say that the problem there was that, yes, the President was trying to build up defense but the other party was trying to build up social spending. Unfortunately, the compromise was by increasing spending everywhere. So both Democrats and Republicans can take a partial credit for the increase in the debt. That was not just the act of the administration. But what we are talking about today is trying to make Government smaller, Government less obtrusive, and Government more efficient. There is no question that but what modern technology has made it possible for Government, as well as the private sector, to do more with less. What we are proposing today in the way of reductions in personnel are not just figures drawn out of the air, but based primarily on the proposals in the Domenici budget. What we are proposing in the way of reduction in employment, first of all, is a 50,000 reduction in FTE savings below the current FTE caps. And the GAO figures show that is a reality. With the elimination of the Department of Commerce we expect a reduction of 30,000 in FTE, HUD, 20,000, and the Department of Defense, 50,000. Let me point out that the administration has made significant reductions in the DOD. But basically most of the reductions are in Defense Department, and not in the other civilian agencies. As a matter of fact, defense military functions will be reduced something like 208,000 under 272,000. What we are proposing in our reduction of 200,000 is that most of these reductions will come from the civilian agencies, limiting the reduction in the Department of Defense to 50,000. Currently, in the acquisition of military systems there is something like 17 to 20 levels of bureaucracy. This bureaucracy does not add value or expedite the acquisition of new weapons. Instead, it takes about twice as long in the military area to go from an idea to fielding a weapon as it does in the private sector to go from an idea to selling a product in the market. What we are seeking here is a reduction of personnel that is based on those programs and departments that would be reduced or eliminated under the Domenici budget. Just let me point out that for the fiscal year 1996 the chairman's mark lists something like 150 different programs that are going to be eliminated. And obviously, when you eliminate programs, you do not need the personnel that you otherwise have. So that is where we are proposing these reductions. By doing this, we expect better service to be given the American people. Let me point out that one of our concerns is that we want to make the Federal Government a desirable place in which to work. And, unfortunately, anyone who has discussed the matter with people in the executive branch will tell you the frustration, the inability to move forward because of the process that has been built up over recent years. And that is what we are trying to eliminate today. Hopefully, by reducing the size of Government, and by changing the personnel policies, the Federal work force will find this a better place in which to work because what we are proposing as changes is that individuals who perform in the executive branch will be rewarded for their accomplishments. They will also be penalized if they do not perform. My distinguished colleague and friend from Ohio said that we proposed to do away with a military system, if it were 10 percent off the proposed goal. In other words, if the cost of the system was 10 percent higher than schedule, or if the time was 10 percent longer, the system would be canceled. That is not what I have proposed. To the contrary, what we are proposing is that, in order to get a bonus, an employee would have to perform 10 percent better than the goal set as the acquisition of the weapons system, or, on the other hand, if it is 10 percent more expensive, the schedule is 10 percent behind, then the employee can be penalized. But we would only revoke the system if it were 50 percent off course, and hopefully those opportunities would not present themselves too often. But again, let me spell out what we are proposing in this amendment. Our amendment expresses the sense of the Senate to reduce the number of Governmentwide, full-time equivalent positions over the next 7 years. And it provides for a reduction of 200,000 positions by 2002 in addition to the already enacted reduction of 272,900 FTE's by 1999 in the 1994 Federal Work Force Restructuring Act. Not more than 50,000 of the reductions may be within the Department of Defense. As I have already indicated, of the reductions that have already been made by this administration, the vast majority have already been in the Defense Department. And our program is consistent with the Domenici budget to streamline and eliminate several Government functions and programs. It is also consistent with the Roth-Kasich Defense Department acquisition reform bill to reduce the number of acquisition personnel. This reform bill would produce savings of 42,000 in FTE's with Department of Defense. Current FTE reductions to comply with the 1994 Federal Work Force Reduction Act of 272,900 are proceeding as planned. And it has been further estimated by OMB that the total civilian work force will be approximately 25,000 below the existing FTE cap for 1995 and 1996. Current projections show that 208,000 of the mandated 272,000 FTE reductions will be within the Department of Defense, and this amendment will help to achieve the originally intended balance to further downsize the non-defense-related agencies as well. So in conclusion, just let me point out, Mr. President, that what we are proposing is based upon the Domenici budget. We are eliminating 150 different programs and activities. We are going to be reducing the size of departments, if not the department itself, and the number of positions that we are eliminating reflect those changes. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may take. Mr. President, I was surprised to once again hear the attack on the Reagan years. I recall during the Carter administration when we had double-digit unemployment, double-digit inflation, the misery index, which was based upon unemployment and inflation, was never higher, and unemployment was as high as it has been in recent years. But after the tax cut in the Reagan administration, we enjoyed the longest peacetime growth period in the history of this country.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, my amendment would express the sense of the Senate to reduce the number of Government-wide full-time equivalent [FTE] positions over the next 7 years. It is consistent with the Domenici budget to streamline and eliminate several Government functions and programs. The amendment provides for a reduction of 200,000 positions by 2002 in addition to the already enacted reduction of 272,900 FTE's by 1999 in the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994. That legislation included government-wide annual FTE caps on civilian employment as well as provided buyout authority to help agencies downsize in a more humane fashion. The Domenici budget calls for the elimination of the Department of Commerce, an idea that I have endorsed since the early 1980's. It also calls for the elimination or phase out of nearly 150 Federal programs and functions. My estimates show that with these programmatic changes, over 150,000 positions could be eliminated in non-Defense agencies by fiscal year 2020. My amendment limits the overall reductions within the Department of Defense to 50,000. Current Clinton administration projections show that 208,000 of the mandated 272,900 FTE reductions will be within the Department of Defense. This amendment will help to achieve the originally intended balance to further downsize the non-Defense related agencies as well. My amendment is consistent with the Roth-Kasich Defense Department acquisition reform bill to reduce the number of acquisition personnel. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this reform bill would produce 42,500 in FTE savings with the Defense Department. Current FTE reductions to comply with the 1994 Federal Workforce Restructing Act of 272,900 by 1999 are proceeding as planned. Further, OMB has estimated that the total civilian workforce will be approximately 25,000 below the existing FTE cap levels for 1995 and 1996. Let me take just a few moments to explain the personnel savings that could be achieved within the acquisition workforce at the Defense Department. Despite recent efforts at improvement, DOD programs continue to experience significant cost, schedule and performance problems. A recent Defense Department study found that defense programs are over budget and behind schedule by one-third, on average. The Defense Science Board reported that ``* * * without fundamental reform, DOD will be unable to afford the weapons, equipment and services it needs to provide for our national security.'' After spending billions of dollars this suggests our troops in the future could face an enemy who is better equipped, because of the failure of the current bureaucracy to efficiently procure weapons. Last month, I introduced the Defense Acquisition Management Reform Act to address this situation. It contains two key elements. First, it busts the bureaucracy. It combines the three separate maintenance and procurement systems--the Army, Navy and Air Force--into one. This is a commonsense solution for incredible duplication and inefficient bureaucracy. In fact, this bill turns 20 levels of bureaucracy into 3, and eliminates hundreds of paperwork requirements. We are proposing that the Pentagon use the lean, results-oriented approach employed by globally competitive high-technology firms. This will not only highlight results over process, but it will cut the timeline in half! As the result, the bill returns authority to program managers and those who actually use the weapons. Second, it changes the incentives and rewards that drive the day-to- day actions of the individuals in the buying system. The Defense Acquisition Management Reform Act of 1995 gives managers and contractors the incentives they need to deliver their programs on time and on budget. If they deliver more than 10 percent ahead of time and under budget, they get bonuses. If they deliver more than 10 percent late or over budget, they are penalized. If they are more than 50 percent over budget, the program is cancelled. It is that simple. These changes are only a few of the many features contained in this bill that will save the American taxpayers some $20 billion each and every year. As a part of these savings, we calculate that this bill will allow a reduction of the defense acquisition work force, currently estimated at 425,000, by at least 10 percent. This is a bill with teeth, different from past reform efforts because of the incentives and penalties that will affect the program managers. Pay for performance and busting the bureaucracy will make all the difference. The act focuses on eight, key principles: First, expanding the 90 percent cost, schedule and performance goals established for defense acquisition by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994; second, creating a single, lean DOD acquisition command which is more responsive to the war fighters; third, more directly tying the pay of the work force to achievement of program goals; fourth, establishing an accelerated, results-oriented acquisition cycle which is more sensitive to user needs; fifth, speeding up the contracting process; sixth, instituting performance-based contract management which focuses on sharing with defense contractors the gain (or the pain) of meeting (or missing) program performance goals; seventh, requiring improvements in the financial management systems and procedures used to ensure the most effective stewardship of taxpayer dollars; and eighth, increasing the efficiency of acquisition operations through consolidation of military depots and elimination of duplicative defense industry capabilities. Mr. President, as I said, the purpose of this amendment is to express the sense of the Senate that the number of Federal full-time equivalent positions should be further reduced. It is a very simple amendment. It provides that it is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying the fundamental totals in this resolution include that the reductions in Federal full-time equivalent positions required under section 5(b) of the Federal Work Force Restructuring Act of 1995 should be further reduced to provide that, first, the total number of full-time equivalent positions in all agencies shall not exceed 1,682,300 during fiscal year 2002; second, of the additional reductions of 200,000 full-time equivalent positions provided for under paragraph 1, no more than 50,000 shall be within the Department of Defense. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, just a couple of hours ago, the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty--the single most important component of the international effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons--was enshrined for all time by an overwhelming decision made by more than 170 countries party to the treaty. The decision to make the NPT permanent was accomplished without any conditions or qualifications. This is a truly historic day in our ongoing efforts to make ours a safer and more peaceful world. The security of all countries, weapons States and nonweapons States alike, has been strengthened. The NPT has established the norm prohibiting the further acquisition of nuclear weapons. Indefinite extension of the NPT will help improve the climate of trust conducive to more restrictive controls over weapons-grade nuclear materials and related technologies and activities. It also provides momentum for addressing the dangers posed by other weapons of mass destruction. Making the NPT permanent, of course, will not end the global nuclear proliferation threat. Treaty membership is never a guarantee of compliance. Yet, when backed by strong national policies, the NPT advances the security interests of all countries. Indeed, it has helped to keep the number of declared nuclear weapons States and so-called ``threshold'' States at five and three respectively. Clearly, the world remains a dangerous place. Iran, North Korea, and the theft of fissile materials present immediate nuclear proliferation perils. Much progress on controls over other weapons of mass destruction remains to be made. Moreover, as the tragic bombing in Oklahoma has shown, determined terrorists can accomplish their contemptible intentions with even the crudest of weapons. But today is a time for celebration. We have achieved a critical victory in making the post-cold-war period safer and more secure. This is a victory for all the world's people. I believe this body deserves a measure of credit for the unanimous adoption of a resolution in March calling for permanent, unconditional extension of the NPT. It is also a testament to the hard work of Tom Graham who took the lead in the negotiations. The chairman of the conference held in New York, the Honorable Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka, also deserves our thanks for his particularly skilled leadership. Happily, Mr. Dhanapala will be returning to Washington within a few days to resume his post as Ambassador of his country to the United States. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation introduced by my colleague from Illinois. I applaud her for her vision and persistence in looking out for our Nation's most precious resource--our children, and I am pleased to join Senator Mosely-Braun as an original cosponsor of the National Education Technology Funding Corporation Act. During committee consideration of the telecommunications bill last year, I offered related legislation to ensure that every school and classroom in the United States has access to telecommunications and information technologies. I proposed an educational telecommunications and technology fund to support elementary and secondary school access to the information superhighway. Regrettably, last year's telecommunications bill was not taken up by the full Senate before adjournment. The new telecommunications bill that recently passed the Commerce Committee has a provision, introduced by Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, and Bob Kerrey, to make advanced telecommunications more affordable for schools. Specifically, the provision allows elementary and secondary schools, as well as libraries, to receive telecommunications services at affordable monthly rates. Currently, schools all over the country, including those in my own State of Virginia, are forced to pay business rates for access to the information superhighway. That means that schools are subsidizing residential customers. Even with affordable monthly rates, many schools have limited or no technological infrastructure. They lack modern electrical wiring, a sufficient number of plugs, and access to wired or wireless technology that would allow them internal networking capabilities or connections to the Internet. The absence of this infrastructure leaves these schools without a technological on-ramp to the information superhighway. As a result, American children are left by the wayside. This is where the National Education Technology Funding Corporation can play a critical role. We need a single efficient, expert entity that State and local authorities can approach for funding so they can join the Internet, participate in distance learning, investigate interactive computer learning, or explore other innovative technologies. A private non-profit is a logical link between the public and commercial where to go to request Federal funding for new technologies, or where to go simply to learn more about technology applications for schools. Also, there is much more than can be done to promote the use of technologies in schools and to encourage private investments and standards. I can think of no better way to meet all of these needs than a private corporation run by a board that includes representatives from States, from public schools and libraries, and from the private sector. Many opponents of Federal efforts to improve educational technologies claim that the private stock will have adequate incentives to assist schools with educational technologies. Just leave it to the private sector, they argue. This is a very shortsighted viewpoint. There is no question that the private sector is doing great things for America's schools--and libraries--in the area of educational technologies. Computers and software are frequently donated by private firms. Internet access is provided in some areas. Several weeks ago I visited Arlington County Central Library, just a few miles from here, which MCI had made a generous grant to the library to install public Internet workstations. As a result, this library will be one of the first public locations in northern Virginia to offer Internet access. More recently, my staff visited Chantilly High School in Fairfax County to witness a state-of-the-art Internet lab made possible by assistance from the cable company, Media General. These are important private sector initiatives that will hopefully be duplicated time and time again across the nation. But there are problems with a let the free market reign approach. First, wealthier schools will receive a disproportionate benefit. Wealthier schools can afford advanced educational technologies. Corporations are more likely to provide equipment and internet access to schools that have already invested in related technologies. Corporations are more likely to offer services in urban or suburban areas that have good telecommunications infrastructures. Yet the rural schools gain the most from internet access, distance-learning, and a host of other educational technologies. It is rural schools that are in danger of rapidly losing ground to those schools with access to the new technologies. We have to put an end to the ever-growing bifurcation of our educational system. As set forth in this bill, the corporation would encourage equitable technology funding to all elementary and secondary schools. The second problem is commonality. Although we don't want to constrain educational technology development by mandating Government standards, we don't want to create a smorgasbord of technologies that can't communicate with each other and can't be shared across school systems. The proposed corporation could play an invaluable role in making sure school technology efforts nationwide are not wasteful, incompatible, or duplicative. The third problem is time. The technologies are here today. It is a relatively straightforward process to make an internet connection or to establish a video link or to learn the highly effective software now available for education. We shouldn't rely solely on the timetables of the private sector to field the technologies that exist today for preparing our children for the next century. The Educational Technology Corporation would play a key role in promoting the use of technologies in education, and could significantly accelerate their introduction into America's schools. For those of our colleagues that have any doubts about the value of new educational technologies, I challenge them to sit down on a computer with internet access, and surf. They'll be visiting the largest, most up-to-date, and fastest-growing library in the world. You can chat with experts from across the globe. You can set up a video link with teachers at distant schools, using a small camera costing as little as $100. You can share data or results in a joint research effort spanning continents. You can take an electronic tour of the White House, or visit the so-called webb-site of a Member of Congress. You can even see images or molecules or galaxies. The possibilities are endless. In discussions with school administrators, it becomes clear that students are fascinated by the internet and other educational technologies. Students that might otherwise be indifferent are eagerly pursuing new subjects and sharing their new-found knowledge with the global community of students. Simply put, the child with access will be at a distinct advantage and better prepared for future employment. We simply cannot afford to let our school systems slip behind those of our leading competitors when the technology is at our fingertips--a technology pioneered here in the United States. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the most cost-effective education we can offer our Nation's children. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the National Education Technology Funding Corporation Act.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the Senate's debate on product liability reform has revealed that many citizens and many members of the business community strongly favor legislation that would alter significant aspects of tort law. Products liability law traditionally has been a matter of State law, and the primary venue for products cases traditionally has been the State courts, which are our Nation's courts of general jurisdiction. Proponents of the products liability legislation have asked us, then, to change the laws of each State by creating Federal standards that would apply in all products cases, whether they are brought in Federal or State courts. I oppose Federal products liability legislation because it will preempt whole areas of State law that have been developed incrementally over many, many years. The legislation does not deal with Federal question jurisdiction or any Federal cause of action. Instead, it pertains to an area of law that has long been the primary responsibility of State courts. If it is to occur, the reinvention of tort law should occur through the State courts and legislatures, which are best situated to determine and control the impact of reform within their own communities. We are not dealing in an area where the States have proven incapable of enacting change. The vast majority of States have already adopted some type of tort reform, and many States are considering further changes. These reform measures have varied widely. Some have involved more dramatic changes than the Senate has debated; some have involved more modest important Sate constitutional provisions. In my own State of Delaware, the State legislature has before it several different tort reform proposals. The impact of the reforms passed so far at the State level is unclear, but at least by one measure, the State reforms appear to be having a positive effect. In a recent survey involving 1993 data, American businesses for the first time in many years reported that they spent less on insurance and other risk-related expenses than they did the year before. Much of the savings came from changes enacted by States to their workers compensation laws, which have enabled employers to contain their workers compensation costs in various ways. The survey reported that the cost businesses paid for liability risks, which includes products liability, had leveled out. This is encouraging news. The patchwork course of tort reform at the State level has not happened with the alacrity or the uniformity that many reform proponents would like to see. But the State efforts demonstrate why Federal legislation in this area is so profoundly misguided. In the best tradition of our Federal form of Government, the States have balanced, and in many instances are still considering how to balance, the competing interests in the tort reform debate for their own communities. We stand poised to upend that State-based process in favor of legislation that purports to create uniform Federal standards. In doing so, we are involving the Federal Government intimately in an area where it does not belong. The Supreme Court's recent ruling in United States versus Lopez, the case which struck down as unconstitutional the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act, raises a serious question as to whether the Federal Government is permitted to take over the law of products liability. I oppose the products liability legislation not because of any specific provisions being debated, but because the federalization of this area of the law is a bad idea. Federalizing products liability law embarks us, I fear, on a course where over the years Congress will succumb to a creeping temptation to federalize other areas of State law solely, as in this case, on the grounds of convenience. I am wary of where that course leads. (At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 9, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony on the Department of the Navy's implementation of its strategy for littoral warfare in review of S. 727, the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 and the Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment be granted permission to conduct an oversight hearing Tuesday, May 9, at 9 a.m., regarding the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on personnel and the Subcommittee on Readiness of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, May 9, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony regarding military family housing issues in review of S. 727, the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1996, and the Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 9, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.''

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet Tuesday, May 9, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a hearing on Medicare solvency.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, of the challenges confronting America today--challenges that must be addressed by this Congress--the security of the American family is paramount. Much has been written and spoken about the welfare of family life, about the need to keep the family unit strong in our effort to secure a bright and productive American future. One of the significant resources our families have is home ownership. Indeed, this resource is of such value that home ownership is considered the icon of the American dream. It lends to economic, physical, and emotional security. It keeps our neighborhoods strong and contributes to a necessary sense of community. It gives families not only a stake in the future, but a means to improve the future. Home equity and ownership often become the means by which we send our children to college, finance small businesses, or prepare for retirement. It's clear that the benefits of home ownership go far beyond the family; they contribute to society as a whole. For example, the property tax base is often the foundation for public education. And as a Nation we have been richly rewarded by the Government policies that have encouraged people to realize the American dream. What concerns me today, Mr. President, is that a full 60 percent of Americans can no longer afford a median-priced home. It concerns me that the increase in the cost of housing over the last 10 years has been greater than the increase in family income. And it concerns me that for the first time in 50 years, the percentage of people in the United States owning their own homes has declined. and these trends are being felt, Mr. President, I was troubled by a Gallup-CBS polls taken recently that showed that 8 out of every 10 Americans believe it will be harder for the next generation to achieve the American Dream--8 out of every 10. When these trends threaten the American Dream of home ownership, we must be clear in our policies here in Washington, that we will continue to work to promote an environment of security and opportunity.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today the President of the United States is participating in Russia's May 9 commemoration of V-E Day. President Clinton accepted Russian President Boris Yeltsin's invitation to this event despite the fact that I and many of my colleagues encouraged him to select another time for a United States-Russian summit. We were concerned that because of the moral ambiguity of this commemoration, United States participation would undermine the relationship we seek to develop with Russia. We must not forget that the Soviet Union contributed to the outbreak of World War II, exploited the war's end, and committed countless atrocities to Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and other peoples subject to its brutal domination. President Clinton should not have accepted this invitation, but now that he has, it is for these reasons that during his visit to Moscow he must meet not only with Russia's leaders, but the Russian people and emphasize three key themes. First, he must emphasize human rights. Second, democracy. And, third, rejection of empire. In doing so, the President would encourage all Russians not to look nostalgically back on the Soviet Union, but forward toward the potential of a democratic and postimperial Russia. That should be the principal purpose of President Clinton's visit. Toward this end, President Clinton must emphasize that his role in this celebration is not to honor the Soviet Union, but the valor and sacrifices of all the peoples who fought in opposition against Nazi aggression. He must underscore the fact that while the United States, as a whole, celebrates victory in this war, it has not forgotten the victims nor any crimes committed during that era, be it by the Nazis, Stalin and his henchmen, or others. This will not slight those who fought valiantly against fascism, as indeed did millions of Russians. It will in fact honor them even more highly by ensuring that their contributions are distinguished from the war-mongering and atrocities of that brutal time. And, in this way, the President will clearly differentiate the United States from those who seek to reanimate the Soviet past. In articulating these themes, the President must publicly and forcefully address the ongoing war in Chechnya. Moscow's management of the Chechnyan autonomy movement is depressingly reminiscent of the policies that Stalin, himself, used to terrorize the peoples incorporated into the former Soviet Union. It indicates the fragility of democracy in Russia and, perhaps, even a weakening of its impulse. President Clinton vowed that he would not visit Russia as long as Moscow continues the war against Chechnya. Indeed, Mr. President, in the weeks preceding this summit meeting, President Yeltsin actually stepped up military operations against the Republic, leveling more towns and killing more innocent civilians, both Russian and Chechnyan. It is therefore absolutely essential that President Clinton speak forthrightly to the Russian people, not hiding the fact that America condemns the brutal use of military force against Chechnya. He should state that America's relationship with Russia is contingent upon Moscow's peaceful resolution of its differences with the Chechnyan people. Hesitation on this matter will undermine the legitimacy of Russia's true democrats who have valiantly protested against this war and will strip credibility from our efforts to support Russia's still embryonic democracy. The bottomline, Mr. President, is that human rights is an international issue. If Russia avows to be a member of the community of democracies founded upon respect for inalienable human rights, it must live up to those standards. Third, in order for a true strategic partnership to evolve between the United States and Russia, Moscow must respect the sovereignty of the non-Russian nations of the former Soviet Union and former Warsaw Pact. In this regard, the President's decision to visit Ukraine is crucially important. A Kyiv summit will be an important signal of America's commitment to assist the consolidation of Ukraine's independence. In light of Ukraine's intertwined history with Russia, the success of Ukrainian independence and integration into the Western community of nations will be a critical determinant of Russia's evolution into a postimperial state. An important underpinning of the constructive role we desire Russian- Ukrainian relations to play in European security has been the Tripartite Agreement between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States. In addition to facilitating the elimination of Ukraine's nuclear arsenal, the agreement committed Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and independence. While in Moscow President Clinton must underscore America's commitment to this agreement and our expectations that Russia do the same. The President must also emphasize that NATO enlargement will contribute to greater peace and stability in post-cold war Europe. He must communicate that this is a normal process that is driven not only by the need to address the security of Central Europe but also by the Central Europeans who have clearly articulated their desire for membership. By further ensuring stability in Central and Eastern Europe, NATO expansion will positively and significantly shape the futures of Russia and Germany, two great powers now engaged in a delicate and complex process of national redefinition. It is a critical step toward providing the security essential to enhance the prosperity and stability now beginning to characterize Central and Eastern Europe. It is a requirement for preserving Germany's progressive role in European affairs and promoting Russia's postimperial evolution. By creating greater stability along Russia's frontiers, NATO enlargement would allow Moscow to spend more of its energy on the internal challenges of political and economic reform. I hope that, while he is in Moscow, our President will underscore the fact that Russia cannot and will not have any veto over the future membership of NATO. We all must recognize that NATO enlargement is a process whose outcome Russia will, nonetheless, inevitably influence. If Russia resists the process through intimidation or aggression, NATO enlargement will more likely be directed against Russia. If Russia respects the rights of other nations to determine their own geopolitical orientation, if Russia recognizes the objective benefits of NATO enlargement, and if Russia ultimately works with the alliance, enlargement will contribute to a broader engagement and integration that will bring Europe and Russia closer together. As it was well put in one of the recent hearings of the Foreign Relations' Committee on this matter, it is not NATO enlargement that will determine the future of Russia's relationship with the alliance, but Moscow's reaction to NATO enlargement. Finally, during his stay in Moscow President Clinton must emphasize that America is more interested in the future of Russian democracy than in the fate of a single leader. I strongly encourage that the President meet with members of Russia's beleaguered press and those democratically minded legislators--particularly Sergei Kovalyov, the Duma's former Human Rights Commissioner who was recently relieved of his duties because of his courageous criticism of the Russian Government's Chechyn policy. Perhaps, the President should even meet with those Russian generals who oppose this war, such as former Deputy Minister of Defense Boris Gromov who also lost his position for his criticism. I say this because the future of our relationship with Russia lies not with those who fall back on the brutal mechanisms of a bygone age, but with those who envision Russia as a prospering democracy. Mr. President, America's role in Moscow's V-E Day celebrations should be to encourage Russian people and their leaders to concentrate not on the former Soviet Union, but on Russia's future. These themes--human rights, democracy, and the rejection of empire--are the keys not only to unlocking Russia's potential but also to a true strategic partnership between Russia and the United States. Should Moscow's leaders respond positively to these themes, it would be a strong demonstration that Russia is shedding the imperialist ambitions and totalitarian proclivities of the Soviet past. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

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 hearings on May 15 and May 22, 1995, on Federal pension reform. The hearings are scheduled for 2 p.m. in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Dale Cabaniss, chief counsel, or John Roots at 224-2254. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in early January I announced my intention to have the Governmental Affairs Committee develop this year a blueprint for the reorganization of executive branch departments and agencies. I would like to take this opportunity to indicate that this effort will begin with hearings on May 17 and 18. That first day will be devoted to an overview of the general principles relating to the structuring of the Government. The second day will focus on specific proposals that have made regarding the elimination and consolidation of executive departments and agencies. A number of such proposals have been made recently. In March, for example, our majority leader suggested the elimination of four departments--Commerce, Education, Energy, and HUD. Similar proposals have been made by other Members, both in the House and the Senate. In early January, I said that we might be able to reduce the number of departments by up to one-half of the present 14. But more is involved in such an effort than simply outright elimination of departments and agencies. We may need to retain certain existing programmatic responsibilities of an agency that is itself to be terminated. We need to think about where to put these programs. And to really do this right--to begin to move us toward a Federal Government that is appropriate for the 21st century--we ought to be thinking in terms of a fundamental reorganization of the executive branch. In other words, rather than trying to restructure the Federal Government piecemeal--eliminating a couple of departments this year, consolidating a couple of more next year, and leaving everything else untouched--we need to take a more comprehensive approach. And this is what I intend to have Government Affairs Committee do. As the committee with the jurisdiction over the reorganization of the executive branch, including the creation and elimination of Cabinet departments, the Governmental Affairs Committee is ideally suited to look at the big picture, and to ensure that all the pieces of a reorganization fit together. Doing this may require a fundamental rethinking of what the executive branch ought to look like in the future. To illustrate what this might mean, I would point to a proposal made by the Ash Commission during the Nixon administration. It was then proposed that four existing departments be retained-- others be folded into four new departments with very broad jurisdiction--Natural Resources, Human Resources, Economic Development, and Community Development. In 1991, then-Congressman Leon Panetta proposed that the executive branch be reorganized into just six departments--State, Defense, Justice, Human Services, Natural Resources, and Economic Policy. And just last month the Heritage Foundation proposed that there be only five cabinet departments--State, Defense, Justice, Treasury, and Health and Human Services. But before launching into a full-scale examination of Federal departments, agencies, and programs--to see what should be eliminated, consolidated, or reorganized--I think we need a better understanding of how to approach this task. This is why I intend first to begin with an overview hearing. The purpose will be to get a better understanding of the principles and criteria that Congress should apply as it looks to specific aspects of governmental organization and operation. For example, is it best to centralize responsibility into fewer departments, so as to focus accountability and enhance policy coordination? Or is it best to decentralize responsibility, in order to eliminate layers of bureaucracy and improve responsiveness? Are there innovative ways to achieve the advantages to both approaches--such as through semi- independent agencies located within larger departments? If the Federal Government is going to retain a certain programmatic responsibility--even after reorganization and streamlining--are there better ways of doing so? When, for example, should a program be part of an independent agency? When should it be part of a cabinet department? And when is it best to use some sort of autonomous government corporation? We will also ask about privatization. What does it mean, when should it be used, and how should it be implemented? Are there alternative forms that might be appropriate, sometimes referred to as commercialization or marketization. And what about contracting out? As I have stated, I intend that the hearing on the following day, May 18, will address specific proposals for agency consolidation and elimination, and program privatization. I would invite Members of Congress who have offered such proposals to contact the committee if they would like to testify on their ideas. I should add that I also intend to have the Governmental Affairs Committee begin an examination of governmental operational issues. We need to improve the performance of government, as we reduce its size and complexity. This means a serious effort at civil service reform, as well as looking at budget system reform, program performance measurement, and financial accountability. We also need to ask which responsibilities might most appropriately be devolved to the State and local governments. I strongly agree with the demands for cutting the size and costs of the Federal Government by eliminating obsolete and ineffective programs and agencies. I think the right way to do this is to approach the task thoughtfully and carefully--but with a clear intention to develop a plan that is both bold and comprehensive. Of course, another way to do this would be to appoint a commission-- modeled on the Military Base Closing Commission--to develop the plan, and require Congress to approve or disapprove the plan. I have in past congresses introduced legislation that would create just such a commission, and I am still willing to consider it as an alternative approach. But regardless of what mechanism we use to develop it, we need a blueprint for the organization of the Federal Government that reflects today's priorities and fiscal realities, and that prepares us for the 21st century. The Governmental Affairs Committee will soon begin work on this task.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this is Arson Awareness Week. In the time it will take me to finish my first sentence, arson fires will destroy at least $600 worth of property in this country. That is an annual cost of more than $2 billion. And while in recent years arson has accounted for just over 15 percent of building fires, it has accounted for more than 30 percent of the dollar loss. This, Mr. President, is a problem we all pay for. We pay for it in higher property insurance premiums and in higher taxes. Analysis of 1987 to 1991 fires by the National Fire Protection Association found that residential arson averaged a cost of $14,000 per fire. Fires set in stores, offices, and restaurants averaged a cost of $30,000 per fire. And arson fires in manufacturing sites averaged more than $65,000. Beyond the obvious economic costs associated with homes and businesses lost to arson, there is a severe social consequence. In many cases the remnants from acts of arson end up as hangouts and havens for drug dealers, prostitutes, and other criminal elements. Put simply, arson breeds crime in more ways than one, contributing to fear and frustration, especially in our Nation's cities. Finally--and more importantly--we pay for the heinous crime of arson in a way that cannot be measured--a loss that is beyond monetary considerations. This, of course, is the loss of life. Every year, Mr. President, more than 700 people--men, women, and children--die in arson fires. Beyond the deaths, there are the tortured survivors, people who often end up physically or emotionally scarred. National Arson Awareness Week sponsored by the International Association of Arson Investigators begins the week of May 1. It serves to remind us of one of the more notorious and unfortunate chapters in recent American history, the series of devastating fires set over 3 days in Los Angeles in 1992. May 1 is the anniversary of the day those fires ended. It is my sincere hope that by focusing on the tragedy that is always, in one way, associated with arson, we can minimize, and even bring an end to this horrible crime. As we focus attention on arson, we will better understand who sets fires and under what circumstances. Based on arson arrests, juveniles set approximately half of arson fires, usually as a way to commit vandalism. However, my definition of juveniles is broader than just teenagers. Of those arrested, 6 percent are under 10 years old. However, it is the adult arsonists who are the most sophisticated and who cause the greater amount of destruction. Revenge often serves as a motive for their arson. In 1990, in New York City, a man who was angry with his girlfriend, set fire to the restaurant where she worked. The end result was the death of 87 people turning his hateful act into the second-deadliest fire of the past 30 years. What is being done to reduce the threat of arson? Many things. Insurance companies report information on suspicious fires to the Property Insurance Loss Register, a national database, which police and fire officials use to investigate fires and prosecute arsonists. While this is not a recent development, increased use will pay bigger dividends as the amount of information in the database grows. Also, firefighters have long received training in arson detection. Some even specialize in the field. They are highly trained and skilled in determining a fire's origin. Recently, dogs have also assumed a new role, the role of a fire investigator's best friend. These specially trained dogs are sometimes able to sniff out what started a fire, such as gasoline, when human investigators cannot. I am encouraged by the progress and the dedicated men and women who dedicate themselves to our safety. Arson Awareness Week is one way we can demonstrate our gratitude and encourage the rest of America to join us in fighting this destructive and pointless crime.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have always been a staunch supporter of our Federal system of government, which has as its most fundamental principle the idea that matters of governance ought to be left as much as possible to the States. Traditionally, one such matter left to the States has been the administration of medical malpractice law. By virtue of its overwhelming financial stake in the Nation's health care, however, the Federal Government has a unique and compelling interest in the delivery of care, and this interest leads me to support the McConnell amendment on medical malpractice reform. The McConnell amendment reforms medical malpractice law by creating certain minimum standards, such as a cap on punitive damages, that will apply nationwide. It permits States, however, to pass more thorough-going reforms if they wish to do so. The Federal Government is the largest purchaser of health care, and it finances 32 percent of the Nation's health care spending through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, federally qualified community health centers, the veterans health care, military health care, Indian health care, and many other programs. In fact, the Federal Government spent $280.6 billion in 1993 purchasing health care services--more than for any other service. Projections of the growth of health care expenditures continue to escalate, and the Federal Government's role in paying for these services will also continue to grow--unless we begin to take steps to control the rate of growth. In the meantime, we should be working on increasing access to health care coverage. Savings achieved through medical malpractice reform will not only save the taxpayers of America significant amounts, it will help expand access to care. community health centers, the evidence is good that the McConnell amendment will lead to cost savings and expanded access to care. Currently, more than 500 of these community and migrant health centers receive Federal funding. These centers provide essential primary care for about 6 million people living in areas where there are few physicians or other health care providers. In fact, we have three such important centers in Delaware--the Henrietta Johnson Community Health Center in Southbridge, the West Side Community Health Center in Wilmington, and the DelMarVa Rural Ministries in Kent County. In October 1992, Congress enacted a type of medical malpractice reform for federally supported community health centers by extending the Federal Tort Claims Act [FTCA] to cover these centers. A Government Accounting Office report estimates that for calendar years 1993 through 1995, a total of $54.8 million was saved by bringing the community health centers within the reach of the FTCA. It is clear to me that medical malpractice reform is needed in order to control the Federal Government's enormous share of our national health care costs and, thus, to ensure broad access to quality care. The Physician Payment Review Commission, which is charged with advising Congress regarding Medicare policy, has advised in its latest report that Federal medical malpractice reform should be enacted. The report states that ``the medical liability system does not adequately prevent medical injuries or compensate injured patients. There is concern that the current functioning of this system promotes the practice of defensive medicine and may impede efforts to improve the cost effectiveness of care.'' Last year, these problems led me to vote in favor of medical malpractice reform when the Senate Finance Committee considered it during its deliberations on health care reform. Because the problems are with us still, this year I support the McConnell amendment.

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 Government Affairs, will hold hearings on the Navy T-AO-187 Kaiser class oiler contract. This hearing will take place on Tuesday, May 2, 1995 at 10 a.m. and on Thursday, May 4 at 10 a.m. 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, The legislation I am introducing today has a very simple and important purpose: To give States the much needed flexibility to use Federal transportation money for Amtrak passenger rail service. Since late last year, Amtrak has begun a much needed restructuring. This 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 them 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 allow States to utilize their Federal transportation dollars for Amtrak passenger rail service. There are a number of realistic, sensible ways this flexibility can be achieved. One option is to allow States 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 bill would allow States to use CMAQ funds for passenger rail service if they so choose. More rural regions, that are less congested, receive proportionately less CMAQ funds, but also receive additional funds through the Rural Public Transportation Program, known as section 18. These funds can be used for capital costs, and would be particularly appropriate for those more rural areas that depend on passenger rail service. In addition, funds in excess of the annual State allocation can be transferred into this category, so expenditures on passenger rail would not detract from other services being funded through section 18. These services include intercity bus service. My bill would ensure that States--if they choose to do so--could use section 18 funds for Amtrak passenger rail service. Another important way to achieve flexibility is to designate appropriate Amtrak routes as part of the National Highway System, eligible for National Highway System funding. Many of Amtrak's rail corridors meet the definition of an arterial route serving major national population centers, popular travel destinations and key intermodal transportation facilities and hubs. However, current law prevents States from using their Federal transportation allocation for Amtrak. My legislation would amend the National Highway System map to include the Northeast rail corridor and other high speed routes--giving States the flexibility to use National Highway System funds for Amtrak passenger rail service if they so choose. Passenger rail plays a critical role in this country's transportation infrastructure. But current law does not take this into account. Most projects that are in the same corridor as, or in proximity to, a National Highway System segment, or that will improve the level of service on an National Highway System segment, are eligible for National Highway System funding. However, passenger rail, which is often in the same corridor as an National Highway System segment, is not eligible to receive National Highway System funding. My legislation would eliminate this contradiction and give States the flexibility they need to use National Highway System funds wisely and productively to encourage passenger rail service. Congress has recognized the need for States to have flexibility with Federal subsidies in important local transportation decisions. I believe it is time that that recognition be extended to allowing States to go with something that works. This proposal is an optimal mix of alternatives that will support long distance, intercity commuter rail service and the benefits that we know it accrues. Amtrak is safe, fuel efficient, speedy and the best transportation alternative for millions of Americans. It is time for the Federal Government to remove the barriers in place that prevent States from deploying resources in their best interest and allowing Amtrak to reach its potential. Mr. President, this legislation calls for no new spending. It does not change Federal transportation allocation formulas, nor does it mandate States to spend their Federal transportation dollars on passenger rail service. As I have said, it simply gives States the ability to spend Federal transportation money as they see fit and in ways which have been repeatedly found to be good for them and good for the country.

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 May 8, 1995, to review the Ramspeck Act. The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Pat Raymond, staff director, at 224-2254.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the financial crisis which requires the dramatic action we are taking today began sometime ago. I am not certain anyone can pick a particular date it began, but certainly it has been at least a decade since the signs of fiscal distress have been showing. Of all of the economic indicators, perhaps the most alarming is the continued loss of taxpayers. The District has lost nearly 50,000 people since 1985. Five years ago, the Commission on Budget and Financial Priorities of the District of Columbia, known as the Rivlin Commission, warned that, The District of Columbia confronts an immediate fiscal crisis. The budget deficit for this fiscal year will be at least $90 million and will rise to at least $200 million in 1991 and $700 million in 1996 if actions are not taken quickly to reduce spending or raise revenue or both. Congress responded to that warning and immediately passed a $100 million supplemental appropriation for the District in early 1991. Congress went on to increase the Federal payment and authorized the District to borrow $330 million to stabilize the local budget. Federal funds to the District increased nearly 30 percent between 1991 and this fiscal year. In all, the District has received a cash infusion of over $1 billion since 1991. Revenues were increased but spending was not reduced. Between 1985 and 1994, general fund tax revenues increased by 61 percent. But expenditures increased by 87 percent. Now the trickle of red ink has turned into a raging river. Unfortunately, and despite our efforts, the Rivlin warning is about to come true. Along with the fiscal crisis, the District appears to be locked in a perpetual management crisis as well. The city has been buffeted from one scandal to the next turmoil. The city's infrastructure is decaying. Crime, taxes, and schools continue to drive families out of the District. [[Page S5517]] During the entire time of this gathering storm, the Congress has time and again deferred to the local government to take corrective action. All opportunity have been afforded to the locally elected officials to avert the very action we are taking today. While there is no need to recite the history of this sad course of events we know all too well, it is sufficient to state for the Record that congressional warnings of intervention have been unmistakable. The sweeping changes we are introducing into the current local structure must now be given every opportunity to succeed. The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority must have all of the powers it needs to restore the confidence of everyone concerned for the well-being of the Nation's Capital. I do have serious concerns as to whether the legislation is sufficiently clear in this regard and will raise those concerns with my colleagues. Let me say is closing, today's action is not a victory of one political idea over another. Today's action is being taken because the path leading to it is littered with failure. We cannot fail the people of this City and the many people who visit it each year. I support the passage of H.R. 1345.