William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. One reason is that it is difficult. You cannot fund a mandate for which there is no estimate. So what we are trying to----

Mr. ROTH. The important fact is what flows from that determination. The present language permits, in my judgment, CBO to say exactly that.

Mr. ROTH. If the Senator will yield, the point I was trying to make is that nowhere, as far as I am aware, does the legislation forbid expressly the CBO from saying that it cannot make an estimate.

Mr. ROTH. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ROTH. I will make one further statement, and then yield back to the Senator who has the floor. What we are saying in that situation is that, as a general rule, whoever is authorizing the legislation should clarify it so that an estimate can be made. What we are really trying to provide and really require is a reasonable estimate so that when Congress acts, it knows what it is acting on. That is the whole intent, as I understand this legislation.

Mr. ROTH. Where does it forbid CBO, in the case of the public sector, from coming back and advising the author or authorizing committee that it cannot make an estimate? What this legislation----

Mr. ROTH. What I am saying is, if the Congressional Budget Office--in either situation, whether it involves the private or public sector--can make the statement that it cannot make an accurate estimate----

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Domenici amendment, which was reported from the Budget Committee. The amendment has the effect of deleting any reference in the legislation to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the Senate Committee on the Budget in deciding whether a point of order may lie under the proposed section 408 of the Budget Act. The Domenici amendment, reported from the Budget Committee, is identical with an amendment I filed but did not offer during Governmental Affairs' consideration of S. 1. I did not offer it because of opposition from the minority side of that committee and I wished to expedite reporting the legislation to the floor. Under the precedents of the Senate, the Chair rules on all points of order except a few that it submits to the body itself and except where a statute may otherwise require. The only example of the latter is the Budget Act, which gives the Budget Committee a special role on certain points of order. S. 1 as introduced would create a new exception for Governmental Affairs while making clear that the Budget Committee's role on budget issues also carried over to ``the levels of Federal mandates'' for any fiscal year under proposed section 408. At first look, one might assume that both committees should have distinct and equal roles in deciding points of order--that Governmental Affairs opine on whether a provision is a mandate covered by proposed section 408 and that Budget opine on whether provision contains sufficient funding. But the roles are not parallel at all. For the Budget Committee allows its chairman to act on its behalf because all that the chairman does is present the CBO figures to the presiding officer. The Governmental Affairs Committee would have no similar role in conveying its determination on whether section 408 applies or not to the provision against which a point of order is lodged. All types of questions might arise as to whether or not a bill or amendment falls under this legislation. S. 1 contains a list of exemptions on matters affecting constitutional or civil rights, emergency relief, other emergencies, national security, and so on. These questions involve a lot more discretion than matching up a CBO estimate of costs with a provision's level of funding. When an amendment is offered and a point of order is made under S. 1, how is it possible for an entire committee to meet and decide in time for the Chair to rule? It is not possible at all. Suppose the point of order is made against an amendment that requires States to buy computers and software to create a database that facilitates registering to vote. Does such a provision fall within the exclusion in section 4 of S. 1 for those that ``enforce constitutional rights?'' Does the provision enforce a right to vote or only make it easier to enjoy? Is the exclusion limited to constitutionally required rights or does it cover any extra measures that simply involve constitutional rights? Equally nettlesome questions may arise in determining whether a provision increases the ``stringency of conditions of assistance'' to States with respect to certain entitlement programs. Every change in such conditions will raise the stringency issue. Suppose some changes increase stringency and some relax stringency. These are not always quantifiable issues and may be difficult to assess. Since answering such questions is a far cry from delivering a CBO estimate to the presiding officer, I support the Domenici amendment deleting language which I believe is both unworkable and inappropriate. The crux of the distinction is that S. 1, as introduced, would allow the subjective decision of one committee, or even one Senator, on a qualitative matter to be the final authority. In contrast, the language of S. 1 does not give the Budget Committee's determination on the levels of Federal mandates the status of finality even though its determination is a quantifiable one informed by input from CBO, whose evaluations are thought to be politically unbiased. In view of such considerations, the language in question should be deleted. It is, as I said unworkable and inappropriate. For that reason, I support the Domenici amendment. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. I wonder if the distinguished ranking minority member of the committee, the senior Senator from Nebraska, could respond to these questions?

Mr. ROTH. I understand that the Budget Committee would retain authority for making estimates for the purposes of determining the levels of mandates, but some may still have a question about the impact of striking the Governmental Affairs Committee's role. By striking the Governmental Affairs Committee's role in the bill, are we now giving the Budget Committee the authority to determine what constitutes a mandate?

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I am very pleased to have been able to hold a hearing on, and to have reported, the Unfunded Federal Mandate Act during the first week of this Congress--so it could be brought to the floor today. As the first bill introduced in the Senate this year, S. 1 is truly landmark legislation, that begins a fundamental shift in the basic attitude of the Congress toward our cities, counties, and States. In doing so, it will help serve as a bulwark for our system of federalism. It ensures a recognition that State and local governments are not simply subunits of the Federal Government. Under this legislation, we are acknowledging for the first time, in a meaningful way, that there must be limits on the Federal Government's propensity to impose costly mandates on other levels of government. As the representatives of those governments have very effectively demonstrated, this is a real problem. Cities, for example, generally are fortunate if they have adequate resources just to meet their own local responsibilities. Unfunded Federal mandates have put a real strain on those resources. This has been the practice of the Federal Government for the past several decades, but in recent years it has mushroomed into an intolerable burden. This has been due, at least in part, to the Federal Government's own budget crisis. In the past, if Congress felt that a particular problem warranted a national solution, it would often fund that solution with Federal dollars. Mandates imposed on State and local governments could frequently be offset with generous Federal grants. But the Federal Government no longer has the money to fund the governmental actions it wishes to see accomplished throughout the country. In fact, it hasn't had the money to do this for many years. Instead, it borrowed for a long time, to cover those costs. But now the Federal deficit is so large, that the only alternative left for imposing so-called national solutions is to impose unfunded mandates. In other words, the Federal Government has increasingly enacted requirements on State and local governments, mandating that they spend their own money on priorities set in Washington. Without some mechanism to restrain this practice, it would likely continue for years to come. The State legislators and Governors know this. This is why they feel so strongly that legislation regarding this practice must first be in place, before they are asked to ratify a balanced budget amendment. Otherwise, in the drive to achieve a balance Federal budget, Congress might be tempted to mandate that State and local governments shall pick up many of the costs that were formerly Federal. This is why any effort to add a sunset provision to this bill ought to be opposed. Our commitment to protect federalism ought to be permanent. S. 1 is designed to put in place just such a mechanism. In this regard, it may truly be called balanced legislation. First of all, it helps bring our system of federalism back into balance, by serving as a check against the easy imposition of unfunded mandates. And second, it does so in a way that strikes a balance between restraining the growth of mandates and recognizing that there may be legitimate exceptions. The legislation sets up a presumption that before Congress imposes any significant new costs on State and local governments, it must first know how much those costs will be, and then it must fully fund that amount. If it does not do so, then the legislation is subject to a point of order. However, if the Senate decides, in a particular instance, that either requirement is infeasible or inappropriate, it can vote to waive the point of order against the bill. The mandate can also provide for a ``less money, less mandate'' option to outright repeal, in case sufficient funding is not later forthcoming from the Federal Government. The provisions of this bill, in other words, are both firm and flexible--recognizing the complexity of the issues involved. They clearly indicate our general intention that Congress refrain from further imposition of unfunded costs on State and local governments. They are also an excellent reason why we ought not add further categories to the exclusions section of the bill. We already provide that certain type of laws are outside the scope of the legislation's requirements, such as those protecting civil rights. It is in the opportunity to seek a waiver of the point of order that any further exceptions ought to be made. In this way, we can judge each item on its own merits, case by case. I also want to point out that S. 1 does contain provisions requiring that there be cost estimates for mandates imposed by Congress on the private sector. I am aware that there has been some concern expressed that this does not go far enough--that it does not fully address the problems faced by businesses in complying with costly or unreasonable legislative and regulatory mandates. I certainly agree that there is a problem, which is why in less than a month I have scheduled the first in a series of hearings to develop legislation that addresses those issues directly and thoroughly. The problems ought to be dealt with comprehensively, and not piecemeal. I hope that exercise all of Governmental Affairs' broad jurisdiction in just one bill. Mr. President, S. 1 is before us because State and local government officials across the country have made it their top Federal legislative priority. Mayors, Governors, county officials, and others have pleaded that we quit spending money out of their treasuries. They are all to be commended for the effectiveness with which they have made their case, and with which they have helped develop this legislation. I urge my colleagues not to lose sight of this legislation's purpose, in offering amendments. In addition to the State and local officials I noted, I particularly want to acknowledge the active involvement of two legislators from my own State of Delaware. Senator Bob Connor was very involved with this issue as president of the National Conference of State Legislatures. Representative David Ennis, of the Delaware House of Representatives, testified at the Governmental Affairs Committee's first hearing on unfunded mandates. I want to state my personal appreciation to both, in bringing the seriousness of this problem to our attention. I think we all know that it was Senator Kempthorne who has championed this issue in the Congress. He is truly the father of S. 1, having labored long and hard to get us this far. He has been persistent and unstinting in his efforts to see an effective bill developed, while being fair and reasonable in his negotiations with interested parties on all sides. I am sure that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will acknowledge this fact. And he has marshaled an extensive list of cosponsors, both Republican and Democrat, behind this bill. In this, he has been the model of an effective legislator. It must also be noted that Senator Glenn, along with the Senator from Idaho, has been a major force behind the development of this landmark bill. In 1993, as the then-chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, he held the first hearings on unfunded Federal mandates. Last year he led an extensive effort to ensure that we brought to the floor a meaningful solution. The Senator from Ohio has shown repeatedly over the last year that he recognizes that the problem is real. He has been diligent in his efforts to develop effective legislation. It has been my great pleasure to have worked with my colleagues, Senator Kempthorne and Senator Glenn, along with the representatives of the various State and local government organizations, to bring forth this major reform of our Federal system. I also want to express my appreciation to the majority leader, who saw the great importance of this issue and gave this bill the number S. 1. In doing so, he has underscored how vital it is that we preserve and protect our cherished system of federalism. In conclusion, S. 1 does not prohibit the enactment of any Federal mandate. It does not fund any Federal mandate. It does not create any Federal mandate. What it does do is to establish accountability in the Congress. What it does do is to foster informed decisionmaking in this body. What it creates is a process--and an attitude. It revives a long- lost respect for our federal system of Government. It is about time. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to give this bill their strong and enthusiastic support. Mr. President, I yield back the floor. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Criminal Alien Control Act of 1995. This comprehensive legislation addresses a problem that has reached staggering proportions in this country: criminal aliens. Without question, there are many problems with our Nation's immigration system. I hope that this is the year we undertake comprehensive immigration reform, including changing the much-abused asylum process. But we cannot effectively reform our immigration system without addressing the problem of criminal aliens. The problem of criminal aliens occupies the dangerous intersection of crime and the control of our Nation's borders, two issues of great concern to the American people. I hope we can all agree that there is no place in this country for people who come here and commit serious crimes. Criminals are one commodity we do not need to import. Last Congress, as ranking minority member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I conducted an investigation and held 2 days of hearings on the problem of criminal aliens and the governmental response to that problem. Our investigation found that criminal aliens are a serious threat to our public safety that is costing our criminal justice system hundreds of millions of dollars. And the problem is getting worse by leaps and bounds. [[Page S656]] Criminal aliens now account for an all-time high of 25 percent of the Federal prison population and are, by far, the fastest growing segment of the Federal prison population. Throughout our Nation's criminal justice system, there are an estimated 450,000 criminal aliens--a staggering number. Although our investigation found that the Immigration and Naturalization Service is not adequately responding to the criminal alien problem, the INS does not deserve all of the blame. In fact, when it comes to criminal aliens, there is plenty of blame to go around and we in Congress are not immune. Congress deserves blame because our Federal criminal alien deportation laws, created on a piecemeal and patchwork basis, set out an irrational, lengthy and overly complex process that prevents us from deporting criminals as rapidly as we should be. There are, however, many difficulties with the INS that have exacerbated this problem. For example, the INS is unable to even identify most of the criminal aliens who clog our State and local jails before these criminals are released onto our streets. Also, many criminal aliens, having been identified, are released on bond while the lengthy deportation process is pending. It should be a surprise to no one that many skip bond and never show up for their deportation hearings. One thing the IRS does is routinely provide criminal aliens with work permits legally allowing them to get jobs while their appeals are pending. One INS deportation officer told my staff that he spends only about 5 percent of his time looking for criminal aliens because he must spend most of his time processing their work permits. As for actual deportation, the final step in the process, criminal aliens often are not actually deported even when deportation orders have been issued for them. According to the INS, there are more than 27,000 aliens, including many criminal aliens, who have been ordered deported yet remain at large. It is no wonder that one frustrated INS official told us that only the stupid and honest actually get deported. Perhaps the ultimate indictment of the current system is that even on those rare occasions when the system actually works and a criminal alien is deported, reentry into the United States is so easy that it makes the whole process appear to be a giant exercise in futility. The subcommittee obtained long lists of criminal aliens who have repeatedly been deported only to reenter the country illegally and commit more crimes. My legislation addresses the serious problem posed by criminal aliens by simplifying, streamlining and strengthening the deportation process for these aliens who have been convicted of committing crimes in this country. My legislation simplifies existing law by eliminating the confusing array of crimes for which criminal aliens are deportable. Under my legislation, any alien who commits any felony is deportable--period. My legislation streamlines the deportation process for criminal aliens by, among other things, requiring aliens who are not permanent residents and who wish to appeal deportation orders, to do so from their home countries, after they have been deported. My legislation further streamlines the process by allowing States and Federal judges to order the deportation of criminal aliens. Once an alien has been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of having committed a felony, having had the benefit of all the due process that is required in our criminal justice system, there is no reason why the sentencing judge should not also be permitted to enter an order of deportation at the time of sentencing. My legislation also restricts the defense currently used by criminal aliens to delay or avoid deportation. Also, as many of us know, certain State and local governments have been highly critical of what they see as the Federal Government's inability to effectively police our Nation's borders. Yet, some of these same jurisdictions have passed laws and adopted official policies prohibiting their local police departments and other employees from cooperating with Federal immigration officials. I think that is hypocritical. I offered an amendment to the crime bill last year that was adopted 93-6 that would cut crime bill funding to local entities that adopt such policies of noncooperation, but my amendment was dropped in conference. A similar provision is included in this legislation. Through this comprehensive legislation, I believe we can begin to effectively address the growing serious problem of criminal aliens in this country. I believe this is an essential step on the road to meaningful reform of our Nation's immigration system and I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Criminal Alien Control Act of 1995. This comprehensive legislation addresses a problem that has reached staggering proportions in this country: criminal aliens. Without question, there are many problems with our Nation's immigration system. I hope that this is the year we undertake comprehensive immigration reform, including changing the much-abused asylum process. But we cannot effectively reform our immigration system without addressing the problem of criminal aliens. The problem of criminal aliens occupies the dangerous intersection of crime and the control of our Nation's borders, two issues of great concern to the American people. I hope we can all agree that there is no place in this country for people who come here and commit serious crimes. Criminals are one commodity we do not need to import. Last Congress, as ranking minority member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I conducted an investigation and held 2 days of hearings on the problem of criminal aliens and the governmental response to that problem. Our investigation found that criminal aliens are a serious threat to our public safety that is costing our criminal justice system hundreds of millions of dollars. And the problem is getting worse by leaps and bounds. [[Page S656]] Criminal aliens now account for an all-time high of 25 percent of the Federal prison population and are, by far, the fastest growing segment of the Federal prison population. Throughout our Nation's criminal justice system, there are an estimated 450,000 criminal aliens--a staggering number. Although our investigation found that the Immigration and Naturalization Service is not adequately responding to the criminal alien problem, the INS does not deserve all of the blame. In fact, when it comes to criminal aliens, there is plenty of blame to go around and we in Congress are not immune. Congress deserves blame because our Federal criminal alien deportation laws, created on a piecemeal and patchwork basis, set out an irrational, lengthy and overly complex process that prevents us from deporting criminals as rapidly as we should be. There are, however, many difficulties with the INS that have exacerbated this problem. For example, the INS is unable to even identify most of the criminal aliens who clog our State and local jails before these criminals are released onto our streets. Also, many criminal aliens, having been identified, are released on bond while the lengthy deportation process is pending. It should be a surprise to no one that many skip bond and never show up for their deportation hearings. One thing the IRS does is routinely provide criminal aliens with work permits legally allowing them to get jobs while their appeals are pending. One INS deportation officer told my staff that he spends only about 5 percent of his time looking for criminal aliens because he must spend most of his time processing their work permits. As for actual deportation, the final step in the process, criminal aliens often are not actually deported even when deportation orders have been issued for them. According to the INS, there are more than 27,000 aliens, including many criminal aliens, who have been ordered deported yet remain at large. It is no wonder that one frustrated INS official told us that only the stupid and honest actually get deported. Perhaps the ultimate indictment of the current system is that even on those rare occasions when the system actually works and a criminal alien is deported, reentry into the United States is so easy that it makes the whole process appear to be a giant exercise in futility. The subcommittee obtained long lists of criminal aliens who have repeatedly been deported only to reenter the country illegally and commit more crimes. My legislation addresses the serious problem posed by criminal aliens by simplifying, streamlining and strengthening the deportation process for these aliens who have been convicted of committing crimes in this country. My legislation simplifies existing law by eliminating the confusing array of crimes for which criminal aliens are deportable. Under my legislation, any alien who commits any felony is deportable--period. My legislation streamlines the deportation process for criminal aliens by, among other things, requiring aliens who are not permanent residents and who wish to appeal deportation orders, to do so from their home countries, after they have been deported. My legislation further streamlines the process by allowing States and Federal judges to order the deportation of criminal aliens. Once an alien has been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of having committed a felony, having had the benefit of all the due process that is required in our criminal justice system, there is no reason why the sentencing judge should not also be permitted to enter an order of deportation at the time of sentencing. My legislation also restricts the defense currently used by criminal aliens to delay or avoid deportation. Also, as many of us know, certain State and local governments have been highly critical of what they see as the Federal Government's inability to effectively police our Nation's borders. Yet, some of these same jurisdictions have passed laws and adopted official policies prohibiting their local police departments and other employees from cooperating with Federal immigration officials. I think that is hypocritical. I offered an amendment to the crime bill last year that was adopted 93-6 that would cut crime bill funding to local entities that adopt such policies of noncooperation, but my amendment was dropped in conference. A similar provision is included in this legislation. Through this comprehensive legislation, I believe we can begin to effectively address the growing serious problem of criminal aliens in this country. I believe this is an essential step on the road to meaningful reform of our Nation's immigration system and I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this morning the Governmental Affairs Committee, by a vote of 9 to 4, reported S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. Because of the great importance of this legislation to the State and local governments of this country, the bill is expected to be taken up by the Senate this week. Therefore, no official report of the committee will be filed on this legislation. To do so would delay the start of the bill's consideration. When a report is to be filed, each Member is entitled to a minimum of 3 days to prepare additional views. After it is filed, printed, and made available, the bill must lay over for 2 days before it may be considered. Therefore, I am publishing instead a statement of the chairman on S. 1, which contains the very information, such as a legislative history and a section-by-section analysis, that would have been included in the report to accompany the legislation, had one been filed. Much of this is similar to the official committee report that was filed on the bill last year, when the committee reported S. 993, the predecessor of S. 1.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to come to the floor today as the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Governmental Affairs has jurisdiction over this legislation. Our effort to bring this matter to the Senate immediately, is not following the usual procedure of committee referral. But this issue is not new. S. 2 is a modified version of H.R. 4822 as reported by the committee at the end of last session. For a detailed explanation of that bill and for further legislative history, I would refer Members to our committee report No. 103-397. To outline briefly, the committee did hold a hearing on June 29, 1994, and heard testimony from a variety of witnesses, including legal and constitutional scholars, along with our own Senate Legal Counsel, Michael Davidson. On September 20, 1994, the committee voted to report an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4822, which had passed the House of Representatives on August 10. S. 2 was developed over the past several weeks in a remarkably cooperative effort of a bi-partisan working group comprised of Members and staff from product we have before us today reflects the positive results that can be achieved when we are willing to work together. I want to commend the chief sponsors and floor managers, Senators Grassley and Lieberman, for their leadership and perseverance on the issue. Without them, as well as the leadership of the former chairman and current ranking member of the committee, Senator Glenn, we wouldn't be here debating this issue today. I am pleased to join with them in this effort to enact S. 2 as the first order of business in this 104th Congress. I believe the bill before us demonstrates that congressional compliance can be achieved without compromising the doctrine of separation of powers. Great care has been taken to maintain the integrity of the Congress as a separate branch of Government. However, there is no way to guarantee that the potential may exist for conflict between the legislative and judicial branches concerning enforcement of subpoena powers. Another major challenge was to create a bicameral Office of Compliance, yet at the same time retain the independence of the Senate and House of Representatives to establish their respective Rules of Procedure without interference from the other body. Again, I believe this issue has been resolved. Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson wrote that ``the Framers of our Constitution . . . (took) care to provide that the laws should bind equally on all, and especially that those who make them shall not exempt themselves from their operation.'' In light of Mr. Jefferson's observation, one might wonder why Congress created an ever-growing, complex set of employment and labor laws for the private sector that it has failed for many years to apply equally to themselves. While we are here today to correct that disparity, I do want to point out that Congress has made significant progress over the past few years in extending employment laws to congressional employees--most notably the Senate action in 1991 extending basic civil rights protections to Senate employees and creating the Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices. S. 2 will go a step further in bringing together the patchwork of laws that have applied in the past and make clear how these laws apply and provides for enhanced enforcement of those laws by establishing a more independent and credible process for remedial action. S. 2 is an extremely important measure for another reason. Beyond its application of laws to the Congress. It is important because of the message it sends to the American public. It would be naive not to recognize that this legislation is driven in large part by pressure from the public. This is an issue of fundamental fairness to them. We have all heard the references to the ``Imperial Congress.'' For far too long Congress has held an image of isolation, privilege and superiority. That is an image that must change, so that the governed once again have confidence and respect in those that govern. Enacting S. 2 is a critical step moving us in that direction. Enactment of this legislation will teach Congress valuable lessons about living with the laws it passes. Many of the laws that Congress imposes on citizens are complex and burdensome. It's only fair to make Congress deal with the same paperwork and bureaucracy that the average citizen does. That's certainly a complaint I hear from many of my constituents. Compliance is not simply a matter of probity; it is also a matter of paperwork, bureaucracy, and expense. While I have long been a supporter of applying private sector laws to Congress, I recognize that some members may be concerned that these laws may be misapplied or abused for political, rather than legitimate, purposes. I share this concern, but I hope that rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will fairly and adequately address this concern. Rule 11 has been recently strengthened to specifically provide for sanctions when misrepresentations are made to the court for an improper purpose. Significantly, the rule is designed to cause litigants to stop and think before initially making legal or factual contentions and is designed to deter misconduct. I am hopeful that rule 11 in conjunction with the counseling and mediation process developed by the Office of Compliance will preclude abuses of the process. Let me reiterate, I do believe this is a very important issue and that we will be sending the right message to the American people by moving this bill quickly, without extraneous amendments. Once again, I thank Senator Grassley for managing this bill on our side and also want to welcome him as a new member of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I do.

Mr. ROTH. Yes, I most certainly do, and I agree that it is very important to confirm these points. At the Senate Banking Committee, I requested, and the Managers' Amendment included, the savings clause. The savings clause, as I have previously stated, made clear that the adoption of interstate banking legislation will not and was not intended to affect the existing authority with respect to any charges imposed by national and state banks for extensions of credit from out-of-state offices. The Senate Banking Committee report and the conference report both contain explanatory language that is consistent with this reading of the interstate law. The reports state that, as a result of the savings clause, nothing in the interstate banking law affects existing authorities with respect to any charges under section 85 of the National Bank Act or section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act that are assessed by banks for loans made to borrowers outside the State where the bank or branch making the loan is located. I took to the floor of this Chamber on September 13, 1994, to reemphasize these important points. I very much agree with the Senator from Utah that the majority in Mazaika misread and seriously misconstrued the interstate banking legislation. I hope our discussion today clarifies these matters.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Kempthorne, in cosponsoring today the first bill introduced in the Senate in the 104th Congress. The ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995'' represents an important shift in the basic attitude of the Congress toward our State and local governments. It will help bring a better balance to our system of federalism. In recognition of the fundamental importance of this legislation, it has been assigned the bill number S. 1. As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, where the legislation has been referred, I intend to act on it immediately. A joint hearing with the Budget Committee on S. 1 has been scheduled for tomorrow morning. The next day the Governmental Affairs Committee is scheduled to consider the bill, and vote on reporting it to the Senate. It is my intention to bring the ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act'' to the floor sometime next week. This important legislation is just the first step in a long-overdue effort to reform the Federal regulatory process. I intend to move quickly in addressing the need for regulatory reform in the broader sense, particular as it applies to the regulation of business. I expect to hold the first hearing on this subject in early Fedruary. Again, I want to express my pleasure in joining with the Senator from Idaho in this important effort, embodied in the legislation he is introducing today. I urge my colleagues to help move it quickly to enactment.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today we re-introduce the Super IRA, a savings plan that is well-known as the Bentsen-Roth IRA, and now the Roth-Breaux IRA. The former Chairman of the Finance Committee, and Secretary of the Treasury, Lloyd Bentsen, joined with me to offer his leadership on this almost four years ago--and now I believe we are on the verge of completing our work of seeing this bill adopted. Today I'm proud to be joined by Senator John Breaux, in introducing this bill. I believe that this bill is extremely well conceived and promotes the two most important issues facing us today: the family and the failure of our economy. It is clear, after passing the Bentsen-Roth IRA twice in 1992, that Congress not only understands the need to strengthen family and the economy, but that Congress is willing to work in bipartisan cooperation to pass this legislation. We have done it before; we can do it again. This Super IRA will do much not only to serve our families and help our nation's savings rate, but it will also restore equity to spouses who want to participate in the program. The lack of savings in this country, as we all know, has reached crisis proportions. Chairman Alan Greenspan, at the Federal Reserve, has said that the single most important long-term economic issue for this country is savings--savings that are essential for jobs, opportunity, and growth. This bill will help bring new savers into the act. Savings is not only important to our nation's economy, it is also important to create security and self-reliance in our families. This Super IRA will help Americans. It is flexible, allowing withdrawals to be made penalty-free to purchase first homes, to pay for unusually large medical bills, college educations, and to help families during extended periods of unemployment. One of the primary benefits of this Super IRA is that parents and grandparents are able to draw down their IRAs without penalty to pay their children's college education, or contribute grandchildren can use their IRAs to help their parents and grandparents. This is what real ``opportunity'' is all about-- ``opportunity'' for the family--``opportunity'' because once again Americans can focus on self-reliance and prepare with greater certainty for their futures. Let me stress, this Super IRA eliminates the unequal treatment of spouses that now exists under current law. This bill will allow spouses [husbands or wives] who work at home to make equal IRA contributions, up to $2,000, in their own accounts. This promotes personal responsibility. The individual is enabled to provide for his or her family, and does not have to rely on the limited hand of government for their support. Mr. President, it's clear to see why this is a bill whose time has come. We have passed it before--in both Houses of Congress--now we must pass it again. It serves the individual. It serves the family. It serves the nation. It is equitable, restoring spousal contributions to where they should be. It is flexible, offering penalty-free withdrawals for life's necessities. It promises the vital capital formation America needs to invest in its future. And it builds upon the very important concept of self-reliance. Mr. President, this bill must be passed, again. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to announce that the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs will hold a joint hearing with the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on Thursday, January 12, 1994, at 10 a.m. in the Rayburn House Office Building, room 2154. This joint House-Senate hearing will concern the legislative line-item veto issue. Expert witnesses will testify on the necessity for such legislation.