William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chief Justice, the House of Representatives presented to the Senate two Articles of Impeachment alleging that the President of the United States committed ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' in the form of perjury and obstruction of justice. These are serious offenses, not unlike those which in the past have been sufficient to remove other federal officials from office. In deciding how to vote on the Articles of Impeachment, each Senator had to undertake a two-step analysis: first, to determine the facts-- the conduct in which the accused engaged; and second, to determine whether that conduct constituted ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors'', which, under the Constitution, require removal from office. This second step calls for the Senate to determine the facts and evaluate the effect of the conduct on the office and on the operations of government. Having listened to the presentations made to the Senate by the House Managers and by Counsel for the President, it is my opinion that the President committed perjury and obstructed justice, and that this misconduct--based on constitutional definitions and historical precedents--meets the standard for convicting an official of an impeachable offense. As the impeachment process is not a criminal proceeding, it is not necessary that the evidence shows that the accused is guilty of a criminal offense under the United States Code. The Framers wrote the Constitution before Congress wrote, and then amended, the criminal code. Nor is it required that relevant facts be established to the same standard as in a criminal trial, as Congress cannot punish the President, other than to remove him from office. Simply put, the Framers' objective was to provide a remedy to protect the American people and their institutions of government from an unfit officeholder. In view of this, I believe that such remedy is to be available if there is clear and convincing evidence to establish the underlying facts which demonstrate that an officeholder is unfit to serve. In determining whether alleged conduct is a ``high crime and misdemeanor'', Senators must examine each case individually. They must consider the officeholder's position in government and look at the effect of the officeholder's conduct in light of the particular position he or she holds. The fact that the Senate has convicted and removed federal judges for committing perjury does not necessarily mean that it should automatically remove a President who commits perjury. The precedents regarding federal judges are instructive, but they are not conclusive. The 1974 House Judiciary Committee Staff Report during the Nixon Impeachment Inquiry, drawing on two centuries of precedents, explains this concept in connection with a presidential impeachment. The report states that the impeachment of the President should be ``predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.'' In other words, Congress must determine whether the particular misconduct in which President Clinton engaged is serious enough to warrant removal from that particular office. This is what I call the ``incompatibility'' test. The ``incompatibility'' test requires Senators to exercise their expertise in, and knowledge of, government and to use their best judgment, focusing on the offenses committed and the effect of those offenses on the office and on the operation of government. It is this kind of threat to the republic which we must evaluate in applying the ``incompatibility'' test. Accordingly, under this test we should focus on the unique nature of the Presidency and the offenses the President committed. The Constitution created three separate branches of government in order to limit the powers of government and to enhance the liberty of the American people. Each branch is supreme in its own area but must respect and defer to the others, when they are operating in their assigned areas. Reduced to the simplest characterization, the legislature makes the laws, the executive executes the laws, and the judiciary interprets the laws and dispenses justice. As the head of the executive branch, the President stands alone as the official responsible for executing the laws of our country. The duty of a branch to respect the other branches is a duty that can only be carried out by federal officeholders. It cannot be borne by private citizens. And it is fundamental to the operations of the federal government. Our government could not function if the branches did not respect one another. I believe President Clinton violated this fundamental duty to respect the judicial branch by subverting its function. When a private citizen sued President Clinton under our civil rights statutes, the President took the position that he was unique in our system of law and could not be sued while President. When the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the President could be sued, the President decided to frustrate the judicial process while appearing outwardly to comply with the requirement of our constitutional plan. As a practical matter, he sought to veto this Supreme Court decision. The evidence shows that he undertook a deliberate and multifaceted plan to thwart the Supreme Court ruling. That plan included the commission of perjury and obstruction of justice, which are very serious and fundamental wrongs. Even worse is that his conduct was conscious and calculated. It was not a mistake of the moment. Rather he deliberated and chose to commit perjury. He deliberated and chose to obstruct justice. In making these conscious and calculated choices, he placed his personal and political interests above his presidential duty to respect the judicial branch. This is what concerns me greatly. If the President is willing to place his personal and political interests above his duties as President, he is not fit for the office he holds. The President has, as one branch of the federal government, a duty to respect the requirements of the judicial branch and its proceedings. The President has, as the chief executive, an express duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. In committing perjury and in obstructing justice, he exhibited an attitude dangerous to the operation of government--an attitude where he viewed himself as more important than the rule of law, where his personal and political interests took precedence over the public interest in administering equal justice under law. Ours is a nation ruled by law, not by men, and not by personalities. The judgment that we render here will set a precedent for the ages. If Congress concludes that the office of the Presidency should remain occupied by one who has sullied it with premeditated criminal conduct in violation of constitutional and legal duty, then it will have diminished America's right of self-defense against unfit officeholders, something that the Framers specifically provided for in the Constitution. A President who commits perjury before a federal grand jury and obstructs justice poisons the well from which justice is administered. As far as I know, this President has the dubious distinction of being the first and only President in the history of the United States to lie directly to a federal grand jury. After taking an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he deliberately violated that oath. The first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, accurately stated that there is no crime more extensively pernicious to society than perjury. If the President commits perjury and we conclude that nevertheless he may remain in office, by what authority does any judge ask any litigant to swear under oath? As far as I am concerned, this is not just an empty question that has no relevance in today's society. Every day, in courtrooms and grand jury rooms across the country, witnesses are asked to hold up their right hand and take an oath to tell the truth. The judicial process in the United States depends on the sanctity of that oath. The prosecutorial function of the United States depends on the sanctity of that oath. It is the cornerstone of our system of justice. We simply cannot allow people across the country to look at the conduct of our President and raise legitimate questions about whether they need to comply with their solemn oaths. Moreover, how can judges refer violations of perjury or obstruction of justice to the executive branch for prosecution, when the chief executive himself has committed these offenses? On prior occasions, the Senate has removed judges for perjury because it was ``incompatible'' to ask litigants not to commit perjury in a courtroom presided over by someone who had himself committed perjury. A similar ``incompatibility'' exists where the sanction for perjury or obstruction of justice must be applied by the executive branch presided over by someone who has likewise committed these violations. The President must be removed before the corrosive effect of his conduct eats away at the rule of law and undermines the legal system. To imagine this President remaining in office brings to mind Alexander Pope's troubling question: ``If gold should rust, what will iron do?'' If our President commits perjury and obstruction of justice, what can we expect of our citizens? The Senate should seek to protect the legal system from that threat. And that is why I voted to convict and remove William Jefferson Clinton from office.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the great Leo Tolstoy once confided in his diary that he would be the unhappiest of men if he could not find a purpose for his life. As we all know, Tolstoy did, indeed, find purpose. As a novelist, philosopher, and social reformer, he brought entertainment, meaning, and direction into the lives of millions--his influence continuing even into our day and age. The need to bring meaning and success into our lives--the need to have a purpose, to be anxiously engaged in a good cause--is, as Tolstoy pointed out, one of the most basic in our nature. With this in mind, it is my pleasure to join Senators Moynihan, Jeffords, and Kennedy to introduce legislation that while simple in purpose will be infinite in application and influence. Our objective? To help people with disabilities go to work. In 1990, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. That law made an important statement about this nation's commitment to independence and opportunity for people with disabilities. Since then, barriers that had made some of even the simplest daily tasks difficult or even impossible have been lifted. Millions of Americans have gone back to work or found their daily chores to be more accessible--easier to address and accomplish. Despite these successes and the progress that has been made in the ensuing eight years, there are still serious obstacles for too many people with disabilities--obstacles that stand in the way of their realizing the most basic and important opportunity of getting a job. With this legislation, we begin to address some of the remaining impediments to employment for people with disabilities. These include the lack of access to health insurance and fundamental job assistance. At a hearing held by the Finance Committee last July, witness after witness testified about the importance of health insurance for people with disabilities trying to enter the workforce. Jeff Bangsberg of the Minnesota Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities put it best when he said that ``having appropriate, affordable health care is a critical factor in decisions people with disabilities make about working. Many individuals are afraid to work because they can't afford to lose access to continued Medicaid coverage.'' The simple fact, Mr. President, is that people with disabilities are often presented with a Catch-22 between working and losing their Medicaid or Medicare. This is a choice they should not have to make. But even modest earnings can result in a loss of eligibility for Medicaid or Medicare. Without health insurance, medical treatment often becomes prohibitively expensive for individuals with disabilities, and without medical treatment it becomes impossible for many to work. My constituents in Delaware have made it clear that lack of access to health insurance is a real and seemingly insurmountable barrier to employment. Larry Henderson, Chair of Delaware's Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, supports our bill ``because it does not penalize persons with disabilities for working in that it allows for continued access to health care.'' Our bill is designed to empower States to break this cycle of uncertainty by making it possible for people with disabilities who choose to work to do so without jeopardizing health insurance access. We do this by creating two new Medicaid options. The first option builds on a change enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). That law allows States to permit people with disabilities to buy-in to Medicaid who would otherwise be eligible except that they earned too much. The new change would eliminate the income cap on this buy-in option. The second Medicaid change would make it possible for States to permit a similar Medicaid buy-in option for individuals with a severe, medically determinable impairment who would otherwise lose eligibility because of medical improvement. Let me also note that both Medicaid expansions would be voluntary on the part of each State. Under both options, States would be able to set their own cost- sharing requirements for people with disabilities who enroll. States could require individuals buying into the program to pay 100 percent of premium costs in order to participate. The bill also extends Medicare Part A coverage for a ten-year trial period for individuals on SSDI who return to work. In addition to these health coverage innovations, the bill also provides a user-friendly, public-private approach to job placement. Because of a new, innovative payment system, vocational rehabilitation agencies will be rewarded for helping people remain on the job, not just getting a job. Mr. President, this combination of health care and job assistance will help disabled Americans succeed in the work place. And our society will be enriched by unleashing the creativity and industry of people with disabilities eager to go to work. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. And it is my intention to hole a hearing on the bill in the Finance Committee next week and mark it up later this spring.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce legislation to ensure that the federal government provides Delaware small businesses with the same treatment as those in other states. Delaware is the only state in which the Small Business Administration does not maintain a district office. As a result, Delaware small businesses are being shortchanged. The primary function of Small Business Administration district offices is the approval of Small Business Administration loan guarantee applications. Without a district office, Delaware applications must be processed out of state. As a result, community benefit, interviews, and local outlook cannot be considered with loan guarantee paperwork as is common in other states, and applications take longer to process. Small Business Administration district offices will also provide Delaware's Small Business community with more effective outreach and awareness of Small Business Administration programs and services. The bill I am introducing today, with the cosponsorship of Senator Biden, will correct this inequity. This bill, the Small Business Administration Equal Representation Act, specifies that each state is entitled to a single Small Business Administration district office. But it will do so without authorizing any additional appropriations. Mr. President, Delaware small businesses deserve the same level of support from the Small Business Administration as is found in every other state. Even Puerto Rico benefits from having a Small Business Administration district office. The Small Business Administration Equal Representation Act will assure that Delaware receives from the Small Business Administration the level of support it deserves.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of Senator Moynihan and myself, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999. This bill reflects unfinished business from the 105th Congress and I am hopeful that the Senate will quickly move to approve this legislation this year. On September 29, the Finance Committee reported unanimously H.R. 4342, the Miscellaneous Tariff and Technical Corrections Act of 1998. On October 20, 1998, the House passed and sent to the Senate H.R. 4856, the identical bill with the addition of several provisions. Unfortunately, for reasons unrelated to the substance of the bill, the Senate was unable to pass either piece of legislation. The bill I am introducing today with Senator Moynihan is substantively identical to H.R. 4856, with only minor technical changes necessary because of the passage of time. This bill contains over 150 provisions temporarily suspending or reducing the applicable tariffs on a wide variety of products, including chemicals used to make anti-HIV, anti-AIDS and anti-cancer drugs, pigments, paints, herbicides and insecticides, certain machinery used in the production of textiles, and rocket engines. In each instance, there was either no domestic production of the product in question or the domestic producers supported the measure. By suspending or reducing the duties, we can enable U.S. firms that use these products to produce goods in a more cost efficient manner, thereby helping create jobs for American workers and reducing costs for consumers. The bill also contains a number of technical corrections and other minor modifications to the trade laws that enjoyed broad support. One such measure would help facilitate Customs Service clearance of athletes that participate in world athletic events, such as the upcoming Women's World Cup. Another measure would correct outdated references in the trade laws. For each of the provisions included in this bill, the House and Senate has solicited comments from the public and from the Administration to ensure that there was no controversy or opposition. Only those measures that were noncontroversial were included in the bill. The Finance Committee is scheduled to hold a mark-up of this bill on Friday, January 22nd. I hope that both the House and Senate will move to approve this legislation soon. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Personal Retirement Accounts Act of 1999. This legislation has a simple but powerful purpose--to establish personal retirement accounts for working Americans. In my view, these accounts promise to give working Americans not only a more secure retirement future but a new stake in the nation's economic growth. And, as I will describe, these accounts may provide the model for future Social Security reform. Just a few years ago personal retirement accounts were an exotic and even controversial concept. But no longer! Today, personal retirement accounts are a bipartisan, even mainstream, idea. In 1997, a majority of a Clinton administration task force on Social Security endorsed the concept. In the last Congress, two comprehensive Social Security reform proposals, one introduced by Senator Moynihan, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee; the other by Senators Gregg and Breaux, had as a central element personal retirement accounts. Mr. President, let me explain why retirement accounts find so much support--not only in Congress but among the American people. With even conservative investment, such accounts have the potential to provide Americans with a substantial retirement nest egg. And an estate that can be left to children and grandchildren. Creating these accounts would also give the majority of Americans who do not own any investment assets a new stake in America's economic growth--because that growth will be returned directly to their benefit. More Americans will be the owners of capital--not just workers. Creating these accounts may encourage Americans to save more. Today, Americans save less than people in almost every other industrial country. But personal retirement accounts will demonstrate to all Americans the magic of compound interest as even small savings grow significantly over time. Lastly, creating these accounts will help Americans to better prepare for retirement. According to the Congressional Research Service, 60 percent of Americans are not actively participating in a retirement program other than Social Security. A recent survey found that only about 45 percent of working Americans have tried to calculate how much they will need for retirement. It is my belief that retirement accounts will prompt Americans--particularly Baby Boomers--to think more about retirement planning. Mr. President, let me describe a few of the features of my bill. First, the program would run for 5 years, from 2000 to 2004, utilizing half the budget surplus projected by the Congressional Budget Office. Each year, working Americans who earned a minimum of four quarters of Social Security coverage--$3,000 in 2000--would receive a deposit in his or her account. About 128 million Americans would receive a deposit in 2000. The formula for sharing the surplus among the accounts is progressive. Each eligible individual would receive a minimum amount of $250 per year, plus an additional amount based on how much they paid in payroll taxes. Over the life of the program, a minimum wage earner--someone earning $12,400 this year--would receive about $1,850. That amount is equal to a 35-percent rebate of his or her payroll taxes. An average wage earner--earning $27,600--would receive about $2,590-- equal to a 22-percent rebate of payroll taxes. And an individual who paid the maximum Social Security tax would get $4,560, a 16-percent rebate of payroll taxes. These figures do not include any investment income--or deductions for the costs of running the program. Account holders would have three investment choices--prudent choices that balance risk and return. The three choices are a ``stock index fund''--a mutual fund that reflects the overall performance of the stock market; a fund that invests in corporate bonds and other ``fixed income'' securities; and a fund that invests in U.S. Treasury bonds. However, my legislation also provides for a study of additional investment options--of other types of investment funds and investment managers. An account holder would become eligible for benefits when he or she signs up for Social Security. An individual could choose between an annuity or annual payments based on life expectancy. The bill also provides a number of features to ensure the program is properly run. First, the program would be neither ``on'' budget nor ``off'' budget--instead, the program would be outside the Federal budget. The money in the program could be used for no other purpose than retirement benefits and the program's operating expenses. Second, the program would be supervised by a new, independent Personal Retirement Board, with members appointed by the President and Congressional leaders and subject to Senate confirmation. Board officials would be fiduciaries, and required by law to act only in the best financial interests of beneficiaries. Lastly, the stock funds would be managed by private sector investment managers. To insulate companies represented in the stock funds from politics, no Board official or other government employee and would be eligible to vote company proxies--only the investment managers. Mr. President, the design of this personal retirement accounts plan follows a proven model--the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. Back in 1983, when I was Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, the retirement program for Federal employees needed to be revamped. One of the new elements we added was the Federal Thrift Savings Plan--a defined contribution employee benefit plan--that has been a great success. Many Americans will undoubtedly ask, ``What size nest egg might grow in my personal account?'' According to an analysis done by Social Security's actuaries, someone earning the minimum wage would have an account worth about $2,145 in 2004, assuming a 7.5 percent interest rate. For the average wage earner, the account would be worth about $2,990, and for the individual paying the maximum Social Security tax, about $5,250. Of course, over the long-term, accounts can grow significantly. For the minimum wage earner after 40 years--in 2039, his or her account would be worth about $27,000. The average wage earner would have $38,000; and the person paying the maximum payroll tax, $66,000. Mr. President, some might ask, ``Why start with personal retirement accounts, rather than comprehensive Social Security reform?'' Indeed, my bill will not affect the current Social Security program. Personal retirement accounts are an exciting concept, but still a big job, requiring careful work by the Finance Committee. Personal retirement accounts also enjoy broad support, unlike many other Social Security reform proposals. So let's get these accounts up and running, proven and tested, while Congress considers carefully protecting and preserving Social Security for the long term. Mr. President, in closing, let me add that personal retirement accounts have another big promise. Such accounts--if later made a part of Social Security or even as a permanent supplemental program--may help restore the confidence of the American people in this important national program. Polls show that Social Security is among the most popular government programs, deservedly so. But many Americans-- particularly young Americans--seem to have lost confidence in Social Security. They believe that there will be no benefits for them when they retire. Personal retirement accounts will provide the accountability and assurances that Americans are asking for. I encourage my colleagues to take a careful look at my bill, and I invite members to co-sponsor it.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to sponsor the Tax Cuts for All Americans Act with Senator Rod Grams, Senator Lott, the distinguished Majority Leader, and other Members. Let me begin by saying that this Congress holds the promise of being the most productive in recent memory because we have the opportunity to build on some notable successes. In just the past few years we reformed the IRS, provided tax relief, voted to ratify NATO enlargement, expanded health care for children, and created new opportunities for Americans to save--all while balancing the budget and strengthening Medicare. Our agenda for the next two years must be to build on these successes. Accomplishing this will include tax reform, shoring up Social Security, and promoting economic opportunity for individuals and families. It is wrong that in an era of every-increasing budget surpluses Americans are being taxed more than ever before. It is wrong that 20.5% of our GDP is going into federal coffers--the highest since World War II--that our families are finding it increasingly difficult to send their children to school, and to become self-reliant in retirement. This Congress can do something about that. We will do something about it. With this legislation we offer Americans a ten percent across-the- board tax cut--a broad-based tax cut--one that will put money where it belongs, in the hands of those who earn it. The budget surplus will allow this. It allows us to do this and to shore up Social Security at the same time. Washington demonstrated last year that unless the surplus is given back to the taxpayer the government will spend it. The Tax Cuts for All Americans Act is the right and necessary thing to do. The broad-based tax cut in this package is the simplest, fairest, and--I believe--most productive way to give the money back to the taxpayer and to see that the economic growth our nation is enjoying continues well into the future. Broad-based tax cuts will also be the best way to return hard-earned money to the taxpayer without increasing IRS intrusion into the lives of Americans. Beyond this legislation, in this Congress we will also address the Alternative Minimum Tax--a set of rules in the code that has grown out of control. The AMT was originally intended to ensure that wealthy taxpayers were not able to use loopholes and shelters to arrive at a zero tax liability. Unfortunately, due to the fact that the AMT was not indexed it has turned into a debilitating liability with the code affecting millions of middle-income taxpayers. Something must be done. These proposals are all about one thing: increasing personal and family financial security--helping Americans meet their needs today and prepare for their needs tomorrow. I intend to push this agenda by going beyond a broad-based tax cut and creating incentives to promote and strengthen pensions and personal retirement accounts. I have proposed a plan to increase IRA contributions to $5,000 a year, and to allow up to $2,000 a year to be placed into education savings accounts. I will also introduce legislation to dedicate a portion of the ever- increasing budget surplus to creating Personal Retirement Accounts for every worker--giving individuals at all income levels an opportunity to own a piece of America's economic future. This is the most important agenda we can have as we look to a new millennium--a millennium that I believe will be bright and prosperous, one that will hold great promise for all Americans if we stay focused, work cooperatively, and put the interests of hard-working taxpaying families before the interests of a big-spending, over-bearing government.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Personal Retirement Accounts Act of 1999. This legislation has a simple but powerful purpose--to establish personal retirement accounts for working Americans. In my view, these accounts promise to give working Americans not only a more secure retirement future but a new stake in the nation's economic growth. And, as I will describe, these accounts may provide the model for future Social Security reform. Just a few years ago personal retirement accounts were an exotic and even controversial concept. But no longer! Today, personal retirement accounts are a bipartisan, even mainstream, idea. In 1997, a majority of a Clinton administration task force on Social Security endorsed the concept. In the last Congress, two comprehensive Social Security reform proposals, one introduced by Senator Moynihan, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee; the other by Senators Gregg and Breaux, had as a central element personal retirement accounts. Mr. President, let me explain why retirement accounts find so much support--not only in Congress but among the American people. With even conservative investment, such accounts have the potential to provide Americans with a substantial retirement nest egg. And an estate that can be left to children and grandchildren. Creating these accounts would also give the majority of Americans who do not own any investment assets a new stake in America's economic growth--because that growth will be returned directly to their benefit. More Americans will be the owners of capital--not just workers. Creating these accounts may encourage Americans to save more. Today, Americans save less than people in almost every other industrial country. But personal retirement accounts will demonstrate to all Americans the magic of compound interest as even small savings grow significantly over time. Lastly, creating these accounts will help Americans to better prepare for retirement. According to the Congressional Research Service, 60 percent of Americans are not actively participating in a retirement program other than Social Security. A recent survey found that only about 45 percent of working Americans have tried to calculate how much they will need for retirement. It is my belief that retirement accounts will prompt Americans--particularly Baby Boomers--to think more about retirement planning. Mr. President, let me describe a few of the features of my bill. First, the program would run for 5 years, from 2000 to 2004, utilizing half the budget surplus projected by the Congressional Budget Office. Each year, working Americans who earned a minimum of four quarters of Social Security coverage--$3,000 in 2000--would receive a deposit in his or her account. About 128 million Americans would receive a deposit in 2000. The formula for sharing the surplus among the accounts is progressive. Each eligible individual would receive a minimum amount of $250 per year, plus an additional amount based on how much they paid in payroll taxes. Over the life of the program, a minimum wage earner--someone earning $12,400 this year--would receive about $1,850. That amount is equal to a 35-percent rebate of his or her payroll taxes. An average wage earner--earning $27,600--would receive about $2,590-- equal to a 22-percent rebate of payroll taxes. And an individual who paid the maximum Social Security tax would get $4,560, a 16-percent rebate of payroll taxes. These figures do not include any investment income--or deductions for the costs of running the program. Account holders would have three investment choices--prudent choices that balance risk and return. The three choices are a ``stock index fund''--a mutual fund that reflects the overall performance of the stock market; a fund that invests in corporate bonds and other ``fixed income'' securities; and a fund that invests in U.S. Treasury bonds. However, my legislation also provides for a study of additional investment options--of other types of investment funds and investment managers. An account holder would become eligible for benefits when he or she signs up for Social Security. An individual could choose between an annuity or annual payments based on life expectancy. The bill also provides a number of features to ensure the program is properly run. First, the program would be neither ``on'' budget nor ``off'' budget--instead, the program would be outside the Federal budget. The money in the program could be used for no other purpose than retirement benefits and the program's operating expenses. Second, the program would be supervised by a new, independent Personal Retirement Board, with members appointed by the President and Congressional leaders and subject to Senate confirmation. Board officials would be fiduciaries, and required by law to act only in the best financial interests of beneficiaries. Lastly, the stock funds would be managed by private sector investment managers. To insulate companies represented in the stock funds from politics, no Board official or other government employee and would be eligible to vote company proxies--only the investment managers. Mr. President, the design of this personal retirement accounts plan follows a proven model--the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. Back in 1983, when I was Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, the retirement program for Federal employees needed to be revamped. One of the new elements we added was the Federal Thrift Savings Plan--a defined contribution employee benefit plan--that has been a great success. Many Americans will undoubtedly ask, ``What size nest egg might grow in my personal account?'' According to an analysis done by Social Security's actuaries, someone earning the minimum wage would have an account worth about $2,145 in 2004, assuming a 7.5 percent interest rate. For the average wage earner, the account would be worth about $2,990, and for the individual paying the maximum Social Security tax, about $5,250. Of course, over the long-term, accounts can grow significantly. For the minimum wage earner after 40 years--in 2039, his or her account would be worth about $27,000. The average wage earner would have $38,000; and the person paying the maximum payroll tax, $66,000. Mr. President, some might ask, ``Why start with personal retirement accounts, rather than comprehensive Social Security reform?'' Indeed, my bill will not affect the current Social Security program. Personal retirement accounts are an exciting concept, but still a big job, requiring careful work by the Finance Committee. Personal retirement accounts also enjoy broad support, unlike many other Social Security reform proposals. So let's get these accounts up and running, proven and tested, while Congress considers carefully protecting and preserving Social Security for the long term. Mr. President, in closing, let me add that personal retirement accounts have another big promise. Such accounts--if later made a part of Social Security or even as a permanent supplemental program--may help restore the confidence of the American people in this important national program. Polls show that Social Security is among the most popular government programs, deservedly so. But many Americans-- particularly young Americans--seem to have lost confidence in Social Security. They believe that there will be no benefits for them when they retire. Personal retirement accounts will provide the accountability and assurances that Americans are asking for. I encourage my colleagues to take a careful look at my bill, and I invite members to co-sponsor it.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of Senator Moynihan and myself, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999. This bill reflects unfinished business from the 105th Congress and I am hopeful that the Senate will quickly move to approve this legislation this year. On September 29, the Finance Committee reported unanimously H.R. 4342, the Miscellaneous Tariff and Technical Corrections Act of 1998. On October 20, 1998, the House passed and sent to the Senate H.R. 4856, the identical bill with the addition of several provisions. Unfortunately, for reasons unrelated to the substance of the bill, the Senate was unable to pass either piece of legislation. The bill I am introducing today with Senator Moynihan is substantively identical to H.R. 4856, with only minor technical changes necessary because of the passage of time. This bill contains over 150 provisions temporarily suspending or reducing the applicable tariffs on a wide variety of products, including chemicals used to make anti-HIV, anti-AIDS and anti-cancer drugs, pigments, paints, herbicides and insecticides, certain machinery used in the production of textiles, and rocket engines. In each instance, there was either no domestic production of the product in question or the domestic producers supported the measure. By suspending or reducing the duties, we can enable U.S. firms that use these products to produce goods in a more cost efficient manner, thereby helping create jobs for American workers and reducing costs for consumers. The bill also contains a number of technical corrections and other minor modifications to the trade laws that enjoyed broad support. One such measure would help facilitate Customs Service clearance of athletes that participate in world athletic events, such as the upcoming Women's World Cup. Another measure would correct outdated references in the trade laws. For each of the provisions included in this bill, the House and Senate has solicited comments from the public and from the Administration to ensure that there was no controversy or opposition. Only those measures that were noncontroversial were included in the bill. The Finance Committee is scheduled to hold a mark-up of this bill on Friday, January 22nd. I hope that both the House and Senate will move to approve this legislation soon. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, on September 29, the Finance Committee reported unanimously H.R. 4342, the Miscellaneous Tariff and Technical Corrections Act of 1998. It was my hope that we would pass this legislation this year. Unfortunately, for reasons unrelated to the substance of the bill, this did not happen. The failure of this legislation is disappointing because it served a number of important practical purposes. For example, this bill would have temporarily suspended or reduced the duty on a large number of products, including a wide variety of chemicals used to make anti-HIV, anti-AIDS and anti-cancer drugs. Also included were certain organic pigments which are environmentally benign substitutes for pigments containing toxic heavy metals. In each instance, there were either no domestic production of the product in question or the domestic producers supported the measure. By suspending or reducing the duties, we would have enabled U.S. firms that use these products to produce goods in a more cost efficient manner, thereby helping create jobs for American workers and reducing costs for consumers. The bill also contained a number of technical corrections and other minor modifications to the trade laws that enjoyed broad support. One such measure would have helped facilitate Customs Service clearance of athletes that participate in world athletic events, such as the upcoming Women's World Cup, the Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, and the International Special Olympics. Another measure would have corrected certain outdated references in the trade laws. For each of the provisions included in this bill, we had solicited comments from the public and from the Administration to ensure that there was no controversy or opposition. Only those measures that were non-controversial and that had no opposition were included in the bill. The failure of this bill is also disappointing because of the amount of time and effort that the staff put into preparing this extremely technical piece of legislation. That is why I would like to give special thanks to Faryar Shirzad, Linda Menghetti, Tim Keeler, Lisa Lee, Marsha Moke, Matthew Sorenson, Bruce Anderson, Bob Merulla and Myrtle Agent from the Finance Committee staff, Polly Craighill, from the Office of Legislative Counsel, and Hester Grippando from the Congressional Budget Office, for their extensive work on this legislation.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, before we adjourn, Senator Moynihan and I would like to speak to an issue that has yet been unable to be resolved--the funding for the Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico. The Conservation Trust was created in 1968 for the protection of the natural resources and environmental beauty of Puerto Rico. The Trust lost much of its funding as a consequence of the decisions to phase-out section 936 and eliminate the Qualified Possession Source Investment Income (also known as ``QPSII'') provision in the tax code. I hope that Congress and the Administration will continue to work together to find an equitable solution that will permit the Trust to continue its protection of the environment in Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I understand my colleagues' concerns. For some time now I have been studying how to provide targeted incentives to develop clean alternative fuels. It is essential for Congress to develop sound tax policy for alternative energy to help protect our environment. Several weeks ago, I introduced legislation to provide such incentives for facilities that produce energy from poultry waste. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues early in the 106th Congress. Permanent Research Credit

Mr. ROTH. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I am well aware of your interest in this amendment, as well as the continued interest of the Senators from New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The Senator raises important issues with regard to the uniqueness of such state-mandated payments. Unfortunately, as you know, we were not able to take up such issues during the 105th Congress. It would be my intention, though, to address this and other tax matters at the next available opportunity.

Mr. ROTH. I welcome the suggestion made by the Senator from New Mexico. I believe that the issues that the raises are important ones, and that his suggestions for comprehensive improvements are worthy of further consideration by the Committee. I am aware that several of our other colleagues, including Senators Domenici, Hatch, and Baucus, are also keenly interested in the future of the credit, and I look forward to working with all of our colleagues who are interested in these issues in the next Congress.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in conclusion, Mr. President, I would say that I am disappointed in the rhetorical excess surrounding the issue of educational excellence. Our focus should not be on inputs and micromanagement, but on how we can best deliver assistance which will result in positive outcomes reflected by improved student achievement. I suggest that the solution to this problem rests in our communities, with those closest to the problems at hand. Exhibit 1 Editor's Note: Silver bullet ideas for school reform come and go, usually warranting little more than passing attention. However, one idea seems to be taking hold among many camps: class-size reduction. In light of the attention and support this idea has received, the Progressive Policy Institute asked University of Rochester's Eric Hanushek--a renowned education scholar--to review the evidence on the impact of class-size reduction policies. This is his analysis. Improving Student Achievement--Is Reducing Class Size the Answer? (By Eric A. Hanushek) Growing numbers of Americans are dissatisfied with our nation's schools and are demanding reform. Recently, results from an international study showed U.S. students trailing the world in twelfth grade math and science. Faced with the daunting task of reforming education, politicians in both parties, including President Clinton, are seizing on a cure- all that appeals to interest groups and enjoys public support: reducing class size. This is by no means a new idea; teachers' unions have fought for smaller classes for decades. All other things being equal, smaller classes are preferable to larger ones because teachers can give students more individual attention. However, all things are seldom equal, and other factors, such as the quality of the teacher, have a much more decisive impact on student achievement. Moreover, the huge expense of class-size reduction may impede the ability of schools to make other important investments in quality. Here lies the fundamental question: What effect do broad policies of class-size reduction have on overall student achievement levels? Supporters of broad class-size reductions generally point to a few studies or a few experiences that suggest improved performance with smaller classes and then rely on the ``obviousness'' of the proposed policies to carry the day. To be sure, there are U.S. classrooms that are overcrowded. But not every school ranks reducing class size as the highest priority. Some schools may prefer to invest in smaller classes, but others might opt for reading tutors, after- school programs, computers, higher salaries for teachers, or increased professional development. In fact, a thorough review of the scientific evidence shows a startling finding; class-size reduction may be one of the least effective educational investments. Historical and international evidence also shows that a national policy to reduce class size could displace more productive investments in schooling. The United States has already significantly reduced class sizes over the past 40 years and student performance has remained stagnant, at best. The overall pupil-teacher ratio fell by 35 percent from 1950- 95 (from about 27-to-1 to 17-to-1).\1\ Aggregate student performance has shown no improvement over this period. Similarly, these changes have done nothing to boost our standing on international achievement tests. Federal policy should aim to improve teacher quality, not quantity. Rather than reducing class size, a better use of federal money would be to encourage states to boost teacher quality by developing meaningful teacher tests and alternative certification programs. Better yet, federal funds could be used to encourage stronger performance incentives in our schools. the bipartisan rush to reduce class sizes The widespread belief that lowering class size immediately improves education has been echoed by politicians in both parties during this election year. About 20 governors are either proposing or actively considering class-size reduction initiatives. These states are following on the heels of California, which reduced K-3 class sizes under Republican Governor Pete Wilson after the state generated a revenue windfall in 1996. GOP proposals both in Congress and in many states to shift education dollars from ``administration'' to ``classrooms'' are also often promoted as enabling school districts to reduce class sizes. Its status as the hardy perennial of teachers' union proposals has further made class-size reduction popular among many Democratic politicians. But this tendency was given a powerful new impetus this year when President Clinton-- previously identified with such performance-oriented reforms as charter schools, high standards, and national tests--made hiring more teachers to reduce class sizes in early education a major feature of his State of the Union Address. the clinton-proposal The President proposed to spend $12 billion in federal funds over seven years to reduce class sizes in grades 1-3. These initiatives are designed to help bring classes in the early grades down to 18 students per class, an undertaking estimated to require 100,000 additional teachers. Federal funding for class-size reduction would be distributed to states on the basis of the Title I formula. Within the state, each high-poverty school district would receive the same share of these funds as it received under ``Title I, and the remaining funds would be distributed within the state based on class size. Participating school districts would be required to match federal funds, on a sliding scale raning from 10 percent to 50 percent. The initiative also emphasizes teacher certification requirements, an important concern described below. Its approach, however, overlooks the systemic defects of our current certification practices and ignores a critical aspect of teacher quality; recruitment. More importantly, the President's initiative represents a detour from past initiatives to promote educational results rather than just education spending. The classsize reduction initiative uniquely promotes new educational ``inputs'' (i.e., money) without a corresponding commitment to educational ``outputs'' (i.e., results). All these shortcomings might be overcome if it were truly clear that reducing class sizes in and of itself improves education. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise. the evidence on class size \2\ A wide range of perspective can be taken in attempting to pinpoint the effectiveness of reduced class sizes. No matter what the source of evidence, the answer about effectiveness is the same: broad policies of class-size reduction are very expensive and have little effect on student achievement. 1. The United States has extensive experience with class- size reduction and it has not worked. Between 1950-95, pupil- teacher ratios fell by 35 percent, from about 27-to-1 to about 17-to-1 overall. These reductions have been an important component of the dramatic increases in school spending that have occurred over this period. Table 1 shows the pattern of pupil-teacher ratios, teacher attributes, and real spending per pupil since 1960. The one-third fall in pupil-teacher ratios is a significant contributor to the near tripling in real spending per student in average daily attendance (ADA). (The table further shows that other teacher attributes--i.e., advanced degrees and experience--also grew significantly.)

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, an additional problem with inflexible mandates from Washington is that it directs resources from the State and local level to areas which a State or local school board might not think is the best use of resources. Some schools or districts may wish to have smaller class sizes or devote resources to capital projects, others may feel that their school reform efforts can best be served by adding computers, newer textbooks, teacher training, or after school programs or other ideas. This is where I think directives become harmful. We do not have the solutions in Washington, We must let our State and local educational agencies, parents, and teachers, have the freedom to put their resources where they feel they will do the most good for the benefit of our children. An editorial from the News Journal from my State entitled ``Misguided Mandate: Micromanagement by Legislators Is Mockery of Real School Reform'' is illustrative of this point, though they were editorializing on an action taken by the State legislature in Delaware. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in full at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to make some comments with respect to the question of the allocation of resources to assist our State and local governments in meeting their challenge in the provision of education for grades K through 12. First, in this war of words it should not be overlooked that there was no disagreement last year in establishing education as a priority when we enacted the Balanced Budget Act. We entered into an agreement only one year ago with this administration where we indicated that yes, we agree that education is a priority for all. We have honored that commitment. Under the balanced budget agreement from last year, we agreed to increase spending on education by 15 percent, or $3 billion. We did that. This year in the budget resolution adopted by the Senate we agreed to increase education spending over the next 5 years by an amount equal to inflation which would result in spending increases of $6.6 billion in budget authority and $4.1 billion in outlays over the next 5 years. Almost all other discretionary programs were frozen. In addition, earlier this year we passed a bill--with bipartisan support--the Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act to expand the education IRA which we enacted last year as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Under this provision the annual contribution limit for education IRAs would be increased from $500 under current law to $2,000 and expand the use of the proceeds from these accounts for elementary and secondary education expenses. Education expenses, it is important to note, under the provisions of the bill were broadly defined to include after school-programs, expenses for special needs children, computers, tutoring, uniforms--in sum, virtually any expense associated with improving the totality of a child's education. The benefits of this provision were large for a very small cost, and I would note most importantly, with no Federal interference. Mr. President, this one provision was anticipated to generate $5 billion for education over a 5-year period and $10 billion over a 10-year period. It was thought that 14 million families would utilize the savings benefit and 20 million school children would benefit. All at minimal cost and interference. The administration vetoed this good and important bill. As I see it where we are today is not in disagreement over the importance of education or the investment in education, but rather a very different philosophical approach in the best way to provide assistance. As a staunch believer in State and local control of education it is my firm belief that the assistance we provide to our State and local educational agencies must be given with the maximum amount of flexibility. Time and time again, the evidence has shown that a one size fits all directive from Washington is not the tonic to cure any ills within our educational system. I therefore believe the administration's insistence on their school construction and class room size reduction initiative is wrong, and actually may be harmful. A policy briefing issued in June of this year by the Progressive Policy Institute states it best: ``It makes little sense to dictate in across the board class-size reduction policy from Washington. A national policy can only expect average gains, which appear to be very small at great expense.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the policy briefing ``Improving Student Achievement--Is Reducing Class Size the Answer?'' be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Tax Relief Extension Act of 1998''. I am pleased to have as my principal cosponsor my distinguished friend and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Fifteen Finance Committee Members have joined Senator Moynihan and myself on this bill. Before I discuss the Finance Committee bill, I'd like to comment on the House bill. Chairman Archer and I attempted to negotiate a bill that would address expiring tax and trade provisions. Chairman Archer and I had many discussions and made a lot of progress in trying to resolve differences on extenders, but we were unable to reach agreement. Let me say the House bill has many worthwhile proposals that we in the Senate should support. Mr. President, we find ourselves in a difficult situation. Although the House bill has many good proposals, it is unlikely the House bill will move by unanimous consent in the Senate in its present form. We will not be able to obtain unanimous consent because the House resisted negotiations on expiring provisions important to Members of the Senate. I remain hopeful that the House and Senate can reach agreement on an extenders bill. I believe the Finance Committee is taking a step today that can lead us to that agreement. Mr. President, this bill is the product of a Finance Committee meeting yesterday. At that meeting, a bi-partisan majority of the committee agreed on a package to address expiring tax and trade provisions--the so-called extenders. This bill is meant to be offered as a substitute to H.R. 4738, the House extender bill. We expect to consider the House bill together with the Finance Committee bill shortly. This Finance Committee bill follows three principles: All non-controversial expiring provisions are covered; No policy changes are made to the extenders--only date changes; and The package is fully offset. The purpose of this bill is to leave tax policy on the expiring provisions settled until the next Congress. At that time, hopefully, we will be considering a major tax cut bill. When we are considering that tax cut bill next year, we will be able to address the policy and long- term period of the various provisions. This bill is necessarily narrow. There are no Member provisions in this bill, including some I am interested in. In order to expedite this bill, the Finance Committee Members on this bill agreed to forego Member issues. This bill extends several important provisions in the tax and trade areas, including: The research and development tax credit; The work opportunity tax credit; The welfare to work tax credit; The full deductibility of contributions of appreciated stock to private foundations; The active financing exception to Subpart F for financial services operations overseas; The tax information reporting access for the Department of Education for the Federal student aid programs; The Generalized System of Preferences (``GSP''); and The trade adjustment assistance (``TAA'') program. In addition to extenders, the Finance Committee bill speeds up the full deductibility of health insurance deduction for self-employed persons. This bill also addresses time sensitive farm-related issues. The final provision in this bill would correct an upcoming problem for millions of middle income taxpayers. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 included tax relief for America's working families in the form of the $500 per child tax credit and the Hope Scholarship tax credit, and other benefits. Taxpayers will expect to see these benefits when they file their returns on April 15th. What some of these families will find is that the tax relief they expected will not materialize because of the alternative minimum tax (``AMT''). That is, these tax credits do not count against the alternative minimum tax. The final provision in the Finance Committee bill would provide that benefits such as the $500 per child tax credit would count against the alternative minimum tax. This point deserves emphasis. We can correct this problem for millions of taxpayers in this bill. As Chairman of the Finance Committee, I consider it my responsibility to simplify the tax code whenever possible. This last provision provides us with that opportunity. I am pleased the Members of the Finance Committee back me in this effort. Finally, I'd like return to the Senate's procedures, schedule, and the prospects for extender legislation. It is important to recognize that the House and Senate are very different bodies governed by starkly different rules and traditions. Unlike the House, the Senate Rules and schedule do not allow us to move this bill at this point in any other way than by unanimous consent. If we are to address these tax and trade provisions, we will need the cooperation of every Senator. If we can get every Senator's cooperation, and resolve our differences with the House, I believe we can deliver an extenders bill the President will sign. I urge my colleagues to support this Finance Committee bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a section-by-section analysis, and revenue table of the legislation, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Home Health Fair Payment Act of 1998. This legislation is the product of a great deal of hard work and analysis. It has bipartisan, bicameral, support. Currently, the bill has 15 cosponsors, and similar legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives. Staff worked to make sure that the technical aspects of this bill could be implemented. After technical review from the Health Care Financing Administration, it is our understanding that the changes in home health payments could be implemented as intended. I would like to thank the many Senators who were very helpful and contributed to the debate of addressing the home health interim payment system. In particular, I commend Senator Collins, Senator Grassley, Senator Breaux, Senator Cochran, and Senator Bond. All put forward legislative proposals which we examined closely, and which helped us in our development of the legislation now before us. With this budget neutral proposal, about 82% of all home health agencies in the nation will benefit from improved Medicare payments. Although I have heard concerns that we do not go far enough to help some of the lowest cost agencies, it is an important step in the right direction. In fact, we have received letters of support from the Visiting Nurse Associations of America and the National Association for Homecare. Let's remember where we were before the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Home health spending was growing by leaps and bounds, cases of fraud and abuse were common, and the Medicare program was headed towards bankruptcy in 2003. Last year, Medicare spent $17 billion for 270 million home health care visits so that one out of every ten beneficiaries received care at home from a nurse, a physical or occupational therapist, and/or a nurse aide. Unlike any other Medicare benefit, the home health benefit has no limits on the number of visits or days of care a beneficiary can receive, beneficiaries pay no deductible, nor do they pay any co- payments. Prior to BBA, home health agencies were reimbursed on a cost basis for all their costs, as long as they maintained average costs below certain limits. This payment system gave immense incentives for home health agencies to increase the volume of services delivered to patients, and it attracted many new agencies to the program. From 1989 to 1996, Medicare home health payments grew with an average annual increase of 33 percent, while the number of home health agencies swelled from about 5,700 in 1989 to more than 10,000 in 1997. In response to this rapid cost growth and concerns about program abuses, the BBA included a number of changes to home health care. Congress and the Administration supported moving toward a Prospective Payment System (PPS). In order for HCFA to move to a PPS, however, a number of computer system changes were necessary with respect to their home health operations. The interim payment system (IPS) was developed to manage reimbursement until the PPS could be implemented. Significant Medicare payment issues for home health care have emerged from our analysis from the impact of the IPS. There are severe equity issues in payment limit levels both across states and within states. These wide disparities are exacerbated by a major distinction drawn in payment rules between so-called ``new'' versus ``old'' agencies. ``Old'' agencies being those that were in existence prior to 1993, and ``New'' agencies those in existence since then. The effects of the current home health payment methodology are that similar agencies providing similar services in the same community face very different reimbursement limits, leading to highly arbitrary payment differences. The payment limit issues will deepen significantly more in 1999 due to a scheduled 15% cut in already tight and severely skewed payment limit levels. Further, the prospective payment system scheduled to go on-line in October, 1999, will be delayed by several months to one year, because of year 2000 computer programming problems, according to the Health Care Financing Administration. This legislation takes several steps to improve the Medicare home health care IPS and addresses the 15% cut. First, it increases equity by reducing the extreme variations in payment limits applicable to old agencies within states and across states. This is achieved through a budget-neutral blend for ``old'' agencies. Second, it increases fairness by reducing the artificial payment limit differences between ``old'' and ``new'' agencies. Such distinctions are contributing to the perception of arbitrariness in the home health care system. And, our proposal does not create additional classes of home health agencies, such as ``new-new'' agencies subject to even deeper, arbitrary payment limits in the future. Restricting new entrants to home health care is an inappropriate barrier to entry in underserved areas--both in rural and inner city areas. In the legislation, greater fairness is achieved by eliminating the 2 percent discount applicable to new agencies, and raising the per visit limits for all agencies from 105 percent to 110 percent of the national median. Third, the proposal lengthens the transition period for payment changes by providing all agencies a longer transition period in which to adjust to changed payment limits. It creates a sustainable fiscal base for the statutorily mandated prospective payment system (PPS) by delaying the scheduled 15 percent cut and the PPS for one year. The following is a summary of the Medicare Home Health Fair Payment Act of 1998: per beneficiary limits 1. ``Old'' agency: payment is a blended formula equal to 50 percent BBA policy + 50 percent (50 percent national mean + 50 percent regional mean); and 2. ``New'' agency: payment is increased by 2 percent to equal 100 percent of the national median, (which continues to be regionally adjusted for wages). per visit limits 3. Increase the per visit limits from 105 percent to 110 percent of the median. delay both the 15 percent across-the-board cuts and the pps 4. Delay of the 15 percent across-the-board cuts in payment limits and the implementation of the prospective payments system now scheduled to take effect on October 1, 1999. description of offset policies 1. Reduce the home health care annual market basket (MB) in the following manner: for fiscal year 2000 it is MB minus 0.5 percentage point; for FY 2001 it is MB minus 0.5 percentage point; for FY 2002 and FY 2003 it is full MB; and in FY 2004 it is MB plus 1.0 percentage point. Savings of $300 million over 5 years. 2. Non-Controversial Revenue Raisers--Revenues of $406 million over 5 years. a. Math Error Procedures--This provision would clarify the math error procedures that the IRS uses. b. Rotavirus Vaccine--This provision will add an excise tax of 75 cents on a vaccine against rotavirus gastroenteritis, a highly contagious disease among young children. c. Modify Net Operating Loss Carryback Rules--Certain liability losses can be carried back over ten years. This provision would clarify the types of losses that qualify for the 10-year carryback. d. Non-Accrual Based Method--This provision would limit the use of the non-accrual experience method of accounting to amounts received for the performance of certain professional services. e. Information Reporting--This provision requires reporting on the cancellation of indebtedness by non-bank institutions. 3. Budget Pay-Go surplus for remaining offset. At the beginning of my statement, I recognized my colleagues for their leadership on this issue. Now, I would like to especially thank the staff involved for their hard work and dedication to the completion of this bill. This represented a herculean task on their behalf. In particular, I would like to recognize the principal staff involved who spent many long hours putting the details of this package together, they are Gioia Brophy and Kathy Means of my staff; Katie Horton and David Podoff from Finance Minority staff; Louisa Buatti and Scott Harrison of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; Tom Bradley and Cyndi Dudzinski of the Congressional Budget Office; Jennifer Boulinger and Ira Bernie of the Health Care Financing Administration; John Goetchus of Senate Legislative Counsel; and Richard Price of the Congressional Research Service. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the Visiting Nurse Association of America and the National Association of Homecare be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for his comments. He is right; this change is only a small step. It does not ``fix'' the interim payment system. However, in the time remaining this year, this is the best we can do. It takes an important step toward making the system more fair, and it reduces the perverse incentives in the current system. In addition, it recognizes that the Prospective Payment System for home health will be delayed, so it delays for one year the 15% cut in payments that is currently scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 1999. I want to assure my colleague from North Dakota, however, that I fully intend to revisit the home health issue next year. At that time, I pledge to work with him and other members of the Finance Committee to see if we can come up with a system that better addresses the needs of North Dakota home health agencies.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Tax Relief Extension Act of 1998''. I am pleased to have as my principal cosponsor my distinguished friend and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Fifteen Finance Committee Members have joined Senator Moynihan and myself on this bill. Before I discuss the Finance Committee bill, I'd like to comment on the House bill. Chairman Archer and I attempted to negotiate a bill that would address expiring tax and trade provisions. Chairman Archer and I had many discussions and made a lot of progress in trying to resolve differences on extenders, but we were unable to reach agreement. Let me say the House bill has many worthwhile proposals that we in the Senate should support. Mr. President, we find ourselves in a difficult situation. Although the House bill has many good proposals, it is unlikely the House bill will move by unanimous consent in the Senate in its present form. We will not be able to obtain unanimous consent because the House resisted negotiations on expiring provisions important to Members of the Senate. I remain hopeful that the House and Senate can reach agreement on an extenders bill. I believe the Finance Committee is taking a step today that can lead us to that agreement. Mr. President, this bill is the product of a Finance Committee meeting yesterday. At that meeting, a bi-partisan majority of the committee agreed on a package to address expiring tax and trade provisions--the so-called extenders. This bill is meant to be offered as a substitute to H.R. 4738, the House extender bill. We expect to consider the House bill together with the Finance Committee bill shortly. This Finance Committee bill follows three principles: All non-controversial expiring provisions are covered; No policy changes are made to the extenders--only date changes; and The package is fully offset. The purpose of this bill is to leave tax policy on the expiring provisions settled until the next Congress. At that time, hopefully, we will be considering a major tax cut bill. When we are considering that tax cut bill next year, we will be able to address the policy and long- term period of the various provisions. This bill is necessarily narrow. There are no Member provisions in this bill, including some I am interested in. In order to expedite this bill, the Finance Committee Members on this bill agreed to forego Member issues. This bill extends several important provisions in the tax and trade areas, including: The research and development tax credit; The work opportunity tax credit; The welfare to work tax credit; The full deductibility of contributions of appreciated stock to private foundations; The active financing exception to Subpart F for financial services operations overseas; The tax information reporting access for the Department of Education for the Federal student aid programs; The Generalized System of Preferences (``GSP''); and The trade adjustment assistance (``TAA'') program. In addition to extenders, the Finance Committee bill speeds up the full deductibility of health insurance deduction for self-employed persons. This bill also addresses time sensitive farm-related issues. The final provision in this bill would correct an upcoming problem for millions of middle income taxpayers. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 included tax relief for America's working families in the form of the $500 per child tax credit and the Hope Scholarship tax credit, and other benefits. Taxpayers will expect to see these benefits when they file their returns on April 15th. What some of these families will find is that the tax relief they expected will not materialize because of the alternative minimum tax (``AMT''). That is, these tax credits do not count against the alternative minimum tax. The final provision in the Finance Committee bill would provide that benefits such as the $500 per child tax credit would count against the alternative minimum tax. This point deserves emphasis. We can correct this problem for millions of taxpayers in this bill. As Chairman of the Finance Committee, I consider it my responsibility to simplify the tax code whenever possible. This last provision provides us with that opportunity. I am pleased the Members of the Finance Committee back me in this effort. Finally, I'd like return to the Senate's procedures, schedule, and the prospects for extender legislation. It is important to recognize that the House and Senate are very different bodies governed by starkly different rules and traditions. Unlike the House, the Senate Rules and schedule do not allow us to move this bill at this point in any other way than by unanimous consent. If we are to address these tax and trade provisions, we will need the cooperation of every Senator. If we can get every Senator's cooperation, and resolve our differences with the House, I believe we can deliver an extenders bill the President will sign. I urge my colleagues to support this Finance Committee bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a section-by-section analysis, and revenue table of the legislation, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, yesterday the President announced his plans for helping Medicare beneficiaries who are enrolled in health plans which are not renewing their Medicare contracts for next year. I am glad that President Clinton recognizes the problems Medicare beneficiaries are facing and I think it is important that we all work together to address this issue. But I am concerned that the President offered a `tomorrow' solution for today's problem. The problems facing Medicare HMO beneficiaries need attention now and cannot wait until next year. The President's proposal is inadequate and we must take immediate action to help Medicare beneficiaries to stay in their chosen health plans. Across the country, including in my home state of Delaware, thousands of Medicare beneficiaries are losing their HMO coverage and being forced back into the original Medicare program with expensive Medigap policies. We need to help these beneficiaries today. I am urging my colleagues in the House and Senate to act now to allow Medicare managed care plans that have withdrawn from the program to get back into Medicare. The legislation I am introducing today, along with my colleagues Senator Liebermann and Senator Mack, would instruct the Health Care Financing Administration to allow these plans to restructure their costs where justified. This would give many of the health insurance providers the flexibility they need to go back in to these markets. But most critically important, it would give beneficiaries the opportunity to remain in their current plans without the disruption and increased costs that they will otherwise face. I am presenting this legislation today after several attempts over the last month to work with the Administration to allow Medicare+Choice plans to update their cost and beneficiary filings for 1999. I had hoped to resolve this problem administratively--before these plans made their final decisions to pull out of 371 counties leaving 220 thousand beneficiaries to find another Medicare option. I sent a letter to HCFA head Nancy-Ann Min Deparle urging HCFA to take immediate action to prevent these manage care plans from leaving the Medicare+Choice program. I find it highly regrettable that the Health Care Financing Administration decided not to allow Medicare+Choice plans to update their cost and benefit filings for 1999. This decision could undermine the Medicare+Choice program enacted into law just last year and which I believe holds so much promise for improving Medicare for seniors. HCFA's shortsighted decision will result in large out-of-pocket cost increases, fewer benefits, and fewer choices for hundreds of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries. The beneficiaries who will bear the hardest brunt of the Administration's decision are the 455,000 enrolled in non- renewing Medicare+Choice plans in counties where no additional plans exist. These beneficiaries will now be left with only a significantly more expensive Medicare option; that is, the original Medicare program combined with a Medigap insurance policy. This is particularly unfortunate given that premiums for Medigap insurance policies have been sharply increasing each year. In fact, the American Association for Retired Persons announced just this week that its Medigap insurance premiums will increase by an average of 9 percent nationwide next year. And even in areas where beneficiaries will be left with one or more health plan options, the plan withdrawal will result in reduced competition which translates to higher out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries. I am very concerned by the agency's failure to evaluate potential increased beneficiary cost-sharing when making the critical decision not to allow plans to update their cost and benefit filings. I believe this action demonstrates HCFA's continued resistance to facilitate private plan choices for Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of the consequence to beneficiaries. I hope that the Congress and President Clinton will fight the temptation to play politics with Medicare and instead do the right thing for beneficiaries by taking action before Congress adjourns for the year to help beneficiaries to remain in their current Medicare health plans if they so choose. Next year, we can work together toward a more comprehensive solution to this issue.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, yesterday the President announced his plans for helping Medicare beneficiaries who are enrolled in health plans which are not renewing their Medicare contracts for next year. I am glad that President Clinton recognizes the problems Medicare beneficiaries are facing and I think it is important that we all work together to address this issue. But I am concerned that the President offered a `tomorrow' solution for today's problem. The problems facing Medicare HMO beneficiaries need attention now and cannot wait until next year. The President's proposal is inadequate and we must take immediate action to help Medicare beneficiaries to stay in their chosen health plans. Across the country, including in my home state of Delaware, thousands of Medicare beneficiaries are losing their HMO coverage and being forced back into the original Medicare program with expensive Medigap policies. We need to help these beneficiaries today. I am urging my colleagues in the House and Senate to act now to allow Medicare managed care plans that have withdrawn from the program to get back into Medicare. The legislation I am introducing today, along with my colleagues Senator Liebermann and Senator Mack, would instruct the Health Care Financing Administration to allow these plans to restructure their costs where justified. This would give many of the health insurance providers the flexibility they need to go back in to these markets. But most critically important, it would give beneficiaries the opportunity to remain in their current plans without the disruption and increased costs that they will otherwise face. I am presenting this legislation today after several attempts over the last month to work with the Administration to allow Medicare+Choice plans to update their cost and beneficiary filings for 1999. I had hoped to resolve this problem administratively--before these plans made their final decisions to pull out of 371 counties leaving 220 thousand beneficiaries to find another Medicare option. I sent a letter to HCFA head Nancy-Ann Min Deparle urging HCFA to take immediate action to prevent these manage care plans from leaving the Medicare+Choice program. I find it highly regrettable that the Health Care Financing Administration decided not to allow Medicare+Choice plans to update their cost and benefit filings for 1999. This decision could undermine the Medicare+Choice program enacted into law just last year and which I believe holds so much promise for improving Medicare for seniors. HCFA's shortsighted decision will result in large out-of-pocket cost increases, fewer benefits, and fewer choices for hundreds of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries. The beneficiaries who will bear the hardest brunt of the Administration's decision are the 455,000 enrolled in non- renewing Medicare+Choice plans in counties where no additional plans exist. These beneficiaries will now be left with only a significantly more expensive Medicare option; that is, the original Medicare program combined with a Medigap insurance policy. This is particularly unfortunate given that premiums for Medigap insurance policies have been sharply increasing each year. In fact, the American Association for Retired Persons announced just this week that its Medigap insurance premiums will increase by an average of 9 percent nationwide next year. And even in areas where beneficiaries will be left with one or more health plan options, the plan withdrawal will result in reduced competition which translates to higher out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries. I am very concerned by the agency's failure to evaluate potential increased beneficiary cost-sharing when making the critical decision not to allow plans to update their cost and benefit filings. I believe this action demonstrates HCFA's continued resistance to facilitate private plan choices for Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of the consequence to beneficiaries. I hope that the Congress and President Clinton will fight the temptation to play politics with Medicare and instead do the right thing for beneficiaries by taking action before Congress adjourns for the year to help beneficiaries to remain in their current Medicare health plans if they so choose. Next year, we can work together toward a more comprehensive solution to this issue.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to report out from the Finance Committee the Administration's nomination of David C. Williams to be the Inspector General for the Treasury Department. The nomination hearing for Mr. Williams was held on September 24, 1998. The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, grants the independence and authority for an Inspector General to conduct audits and investigations to (1) detect waste, fraud or abuse, and (2) promote economy and efficiency in agency programs and operations. I, for one, deeply believe in the IG concept and support the important role an Inspector General must carry out. It is often a very tough and demanding job. The Treasury Inspector General is an extremely critical position that is responsible for overseeing several Treasury agencies, including three law enforcement bureaus, namely, the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The previous Inspector General resigned as a result of an investigation conducted by Senator Susan Collins' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI). PSI determined that the IG broke the law twice concerning two contracts and identified significant mismanagement within the Treasury IG's Office. The Treasury IG's Office has been a very troubled agency because of bad leadership. It is, therefore, an absolute requirement for the next Treasury Inspector General to be an individual with a proven track record as a strong, effective manager and leader, one who will engage in aggressive--but fair--oversight, and one who will carry out their duties with the utmost integrity. Such behavior as demonstrated by the previous Inspector General will not be tolerated. As the watchdog for the Treasury Department, the Inspector General must set a good ethical example. Mr. Williams began his career in the Federal Government in 1975 as a Secret Service Agent. In 1979, he went to work for the Labor Department's Office of Inspector General in the Office of Labor Racketeering, where he served as Special Agent in Charge for two field offices and later as the Field Director. During that time, Mr. Williams also served on President Reagan's Commission on Organized Crime. In 1986, Mr. Williams became the first Director for the Office of Special Investigations for the General Accounting Office. In 1989, Mr. Williams was nominated by President Bush to be the first Inspector General for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In 1995, President Clinton nominated Mr. Williams to be the first Inspector General for the Social Security Administration; Mr. Williams became the SSA, IG in 1996. Since June 1998, Mr. Williams has been serving as a Senior Advisor at the Treasury Inspector General's Office. Mr. Williams' background as the Inspector General for two Government agencies, as well as his investigator background, is clearly representative of the qualifications needed to be the Treasury Inspector General. The Senate Finance Committee intends to monitor the progress of this agency as it gets back on track in accomplishing its mandated mission.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the bill now before the Senate contains seven technical amendments. Although each provision may seem minor, every one serves a larger, more important purpose. Also, as I will describe, the legislation is time sensitive, which is why the Senate is considering this bill in an expedited manner. Let me also note that the bill has bipartisan support and passed the House on a voice vote on September 23rd. Also, the small cost of the bill is fully paid for. The first provision would ensure that every elderly or disabled noncitizen dependent on SSI and Medicaid benefits when welfare reform was enacted in August 1996 will remain eligible. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 grandfathered most legal aliens receiving SSI. However, at that time, a small number--about 22,000--received only a temporary extension, until September 30, 1998, pending a study of their legal status. That issue has been largely resolved, and this provision would complete the work of BBA. The bill also makes a number of common sense changes that encourage work and personal responsibility in several programs under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Finally, I would like to highlight an important humanitarian provision in this legislation. Many members are undoubtedly aware of the Make-A-Wish Foundation and similar organizations that help fulfill the dreams of children with life-threatening or terminal illnesses. For example, the child with cancer who gets a trip to Disney World. Yet, a sick child could lose SSI and Medicaid benefits if the cash value of their ``wish'' exceed current law income limits. This bill would fix that problem. I urge the support of all Members of this legislation.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Internet Tax Freedom Act. This legislation imposes a temporary moratorium on taxes relating to the Internet and establishes a Commission to study and make recommendations for international, Federal, state, and local government taxes of the Internet and other comparable sales. This legislation reflects the exciting times in which we live--a time when commerce between two individuals located a thousand miles apart can take place at the speed of light. Today, names like Netscape, Amazon.com, Yahoo, and America On-Line are household names--each a successful company in a new and exciting global business community. And they are only a few of literally thousands who provide their goods and services over the Internet. They compete in a world where technological revolutions take place on a daily basis, and they benefit the lives of families everywhere. Even in America's most remote communities, our children have access to the seven wonders of the world, to metropolitan art museums, electronic encyclopedias, and the world's great music and literature. These companies--and the countless companies like them--are pioneers. And the new frontier is exciting, indeed. In the new realm of cyberspace, government has three choices: lead, follow, or get out of the way. The legislation we introduce today is a clear indication that government is prepared to lead. It demonstrates that Congress is not going to allow haphazard tax policies, and a lack of foresight to get in the way of the growth and potential of this new and promising medium. It makes it clear that government's interaction with Internet commerce will be well-considered and constructive-- beneficial to future prospects of Internet business and the individuals they service. From the introduction of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, in early 1997, members of the Finance Committee expressed keen interest in considering this legislation. The Finance Committee has clear jurisdiction over state and local taxes--it's also the place for trade issues. And this July, we received a referral of the bill. We conducted a hearing on the issues and listened to witnesses detail the growth and potential of the Internet. Witnesses also articulated the many sides and concerns associated with the tax implications of Internet commerce. Following our hearing, the Finance Committee held a markup, where we approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the original bill reported out of the Commerce Committee. The Finance Committee made significant improvements to the original legislation. We beefed up the trade component of the bill. We directed the USTR to examine and disclose the barriers to electronic commerce in its annual report. And we declared that it is the sense of Congress that international agreements provide that the Internet remain free from tariffs and discriminatory taxation. The Finance Committee's substitute also shortened the moratorium period on State and local taxes relating to the Internet. We did this with an understanding that the advisory commission, set up in the legislation, would not need the five year period that was set out in the original Commerce bill. At the same time, we streamlined the Advisory Committee and focused its study responsibilities. We took out any grandfather provision, feeling that as a policy matter, there should not be any taxes on the Internet during the moratorium period--regardless of whether some States had jumped the gun and applied existing taxes to Internet access. The Finance Committee also felt that this bill should be an example to our international negotiating partners--that if we wanted to keep grandfather provisions out of the international agreements, that we should remove them from our domestic taxation. I recognize that there have been various floor amendments that have changed some of the things we did in the Finance Committee. Despite those amendments, the central thrust of the legislation, which is to call a time-out while a commission assesses the Internet and makes some recommendations about how we should tax electronic commerce, remains. Important international provisions--relating to trade and tariff issues--also remain unchanged. Mr. President, I support the Internet Tax Freedom Act. It is a demonstration of Congress' understanding of the exciting potential and the opportunities that will be realized in cyberspace. It is a thoughtful approach to a very important issue. It meets current needs, and allows continued growth in this new frontier. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it.