William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that following the previously ordered 12:15 p.m. cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the A+ education bill, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy luncheons to meet.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 17, and immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate begin a period for the transaction of morning business until the hour of 12:15 p.m., with the first hour under the control of Senator Daschle, or his designee, and the second hour under the control of Senator Coverdell.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1173, the ISTEA bill, be printed, as amended by the Senate on March 12, 1998; and I further ask unanimous consent that the text of the committee substitute, as amended and modified, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to H.R. 2646 and send a second cloture motion to the desk to the motion to proceed.

Mr. ROTH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in conjunction with the previous unanimous consent agreements, Tuesday morning the Senate will debate the cloture motion relative to the motion to proceed to H.R. 2646, the education A+ bill from 10 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. As previously ordered, at 12:15 p.m., the Senate will conduct a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the A+ education bill. Following that vote, the Senate will recess for the party caucuses to meet until 2:15 p.m. When the Senate reconvenes, there will be an immediate vote on the confirmation of Susan Graber to be U.S. circuit judge in Oregon. In addition, if cloture is invoked on the previously mentioned motion to proceed to H.R. 2646, the Senate will begin 30 hours of debate on the motion to proceed. The Senate may also consider S. 414, the international shipping bill, S. 270, the Texas low-level radioactive waste bill, and any other legislative or executive business cleared for Senate action. Therefore, Members can anticipate rollcall votes throughout Tuesday's session of the Senate.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the author of this amendment. But as the distinguished Senator from Virginia has so ably stated, this amendment, if adopted, would be a killer amendment. So I rise in opposition to this amendment. Under current law, the 4.3-cent tax is transferred to the highway trust fund. And that tax is being proposed to be used to fund important highway programs. I point out, as the Senator from Virginia has already mentioned, months of hard work have gone into the development of this legislation. The bill has been considered for several days on the Senate floor. I think it is important that we move forward as expeditiously as possible. As I said, this amendment, if adopted, would have the effect of killing the ISTEA legislation. It would be most regrettable to have that happen. It is time, in my judgment, to pass the legislation and give States the necessary highway funding without further delay. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to send to the desk the Finance Committee's amendment to the pending legislation. The work of the Finance Committee complements the work undertaken by the Environment and Public Works Committee. In general, the Finance Committee amendment updates the current Tax Code provisions to correspond to the purposes of the pending legislation. There are several additional provisions contained in the Finance Committee amendment that I would like to highlight in my remarks today. In particular, the Finance Committee amendment extends the current expiration date of the highway fund excise taxes and the authority to spend revenue from the highway fund for 6 years. It also extends current law transfers of revenue on motorboat and small engine gasoline taxes from the highway fund to the aquatic resources trust fund for 6 years. The Finance Committee amendment also extends the alternative fuels tax provision for 6 years. These provisions are extended at reduced rates. They are identical to the provisions that were included in the Senate version of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The Finance Committee amendment clarifies a provision relating to the taxability of employer-provided transportation benefits. The amendment clarifies employees who have the choice of either receiving cash compensation or receiving one of three nontaxable transportation fringe benefits. The nontaxable transportation fringe benefits are employer- provided parking, employer-provided transit passes and employer- provided van pooling services. This provision would give all employees the flexibility to determine the type of employer-subsidized transportation benefit that they want to use or whether they want to receive cash instead of using these employer-provided benefits. This provision also provides that the value of tax-free employer- provided transit passes and van pooling services would be increased from $65 per month to $100 per month in the year 2002. Both of these changes are offset by delaying the cost-of-living increase and the amount of tax-free employer-provided parking that would have been made in 1999. The Finance Committee also extends the highway trust fund expenditures authority through September 30, 2003. This provision is important because without it, States would not have access to highway trust fund monies. With regard to another issue, railroads are unfairly burdened under current law. They are required to pay a higher deficit reduction tax than other modes of transportation. The Finance Committee amendment helps to remedy this unfairness by repealing the $1.25 gallon deficit reduction rail diesel tax as of March 1, 1999. The committee amendment also clarifies the tax treatment of funds received under the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program. The Finance Committee amendment includes a proposal to allow public-private partnership to use tax-exempt bonds to fund highway toll roads and bridge construction projects. Finally, the amendment also includes language that would provide for a 2-year moratorium on the fuel terminal registration requirement concerning kerosene. Senator Chafee and Senator Nickles have worked hard to reach this compromise. It is their hope that the market will work properly to ensure the availability of both dyed and undyed kerosene. If not, then the provision would be implemented as originally enacted. The amendment includes a supplement through the technical explanation of the Finance Committee amendment that was printed in the Congressional Record on October 8, 1997. Mr. President, the Finance Committee amendment was approved on a voice vote. All members of the Finance Committee support the amendment. It is my hope that this Senate will proceed swiftly to enact this amendment. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton promised to ``Save Social Security First'' with the budget surpluses. At the time, he said that the surpluses were at least 2 years off. The good news--what makes now such a timely moment in history--is that the surpluses are not two years off, but will begin this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In other words, we have the opportunity to begin almost immediately to use budget surplus to fund personal retirement accounts for Americans. How far will this go? CBO estimates that the cumulative budget surplus over the next eleven years--from 1998 though 2008--will be $679 billion. That equals about 1.4 percent of the taxable payroll that would be collected over this same period. Now, 1.4 percent of a person's wages might not sound like much. But look at what happens if we follow Dr. Feldstein's recommendation and use the budget surpluses to create retirement accounts for Americans. According to a report published by the Congressional Research Service on March 4, for an average wage worker--someone who is 40 today and making about $27,000 in 1998--just 1 percent put annually into a stock account based on the historical return of the S&P 500 could equal 10 percent of that individual's projected Social Security benefit over the next 25 years. Let me repeat that. Investing just 1 percent of a 40-year-old worker's income in a retirement account will grow to equal a full 109 percent of his or her Social Security benefit! For someone younger--say 25 and who has even more time to earn interest--1 percent could equal almost 27 percent of their future Social Security benefit. Indeed, all Americans can figure out what 1.4 percent of their wages will be over the next 10 years, and then ask themselves how that might grow in 10 or 20 years. Using budget surpluses to create retirement accounts represents an excellent first step toward shoring up Social Security for the long run. This would be a new program in addition to the current Social Security program. By establishing these accounts this year, it will allow us to demonstrate their value--their potential--in providing retirement benefits for working Americans in the years to come. Creating these accounts will 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 will demonstrate to all Americans the power of saving--even small amounts--and how savings may grow over time. Americans today save less than people in almost every other country. And even this low private savings rate has declined from 4.3 in 1996 (as a share of after-tax income) to 3.8 percent in 1997. And creating these accounts will help Americans to better prepare for retirement generally. 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 by the Employee Benefits Research Institute found that only 27 percent of working Americans have any idea of what they will need to save in order to retire when and how they want. Personal retirement accounts will help Americans better understand retirement planning. Lastly, these accounts may point the way to a permanent solution to Social Security's problems. We do not need fixes for a few years or a few decades--but solutions that have more permanent promise. It was just 15 years ago--in 1983--that we fixed Social Security for 75 years--to about 2058. But again Social Security is in trouble. Madam President, let me also note that other choices will be far less attractive to keep the promise of Social Security, for example, we cannot count on tax hikes. To fix Social Security would require a huge, 50-percent increase in the payroll tax over the next 75 years. And today's tax is already a burden for many families. Forty-one percent of families pay more in Social Security taxes than income taxes, and if you factor in employer Social Security taxes--which economists tell us are really forgone wages--80 percent of Americans pay more in Social Security than income taxes. And let us remember Social Security taxes are on the first dollar of income--no deductions, no exemptions. Indeed, in a speech last month at Georgetown University on Social Security, the President promised not to unfairly burden the next generation--who will be supporting tomorrow's Social Security beneficiaries. Tax hikes would do that. One way to establish and manage these new personal retirement accounts is to follow a proven model--the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. Back in 1983, when I was then chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, the retirement program for Federal employees needed to be revamped. One of the new elements we added was the Federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), managed by a Board of Trustees. TSP is a unique institution. Each Federal employee has an account, and can allocate their investments among three options--a stock index fund that mirrors the S&P 500; a bond fund, largely invested in corporate bonds; and a Government bond fund that invests in T-bills. The Thrift Board is now planning to add two other funds. Last year, we looked closely at the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) as a model to reform Medicare by providing more private choices in health insurance. The lessons of FEHBP were invaluable. So, too, I believe we can adapt the Federal Thrift Savings Plan as a model for Social Security personal investment accounts. Mr. President, I want to respond to two specific concerns I have heard raised about personal investment accounts. First, that some people will have great investment performance, others miserable. We can surely avoid that. The funds of the Federal Thrift Savings plan have had excellent performance, while remaining conservative investments. Indeed, I am very sensitive to the issue that investments should be handled in a responsible fashion--and I think we do that with even more choices than offered by the Federal plan. The second concern is that the progressive nature of Social Security benefits will be lost with personal investment accounts. I believe we can construct a system that benefits low-wage workers, and I am committed to that. The bottom line is that by using the budget surplus to create personal investment accounts, we will go a long way toward providing a workable and very attractive solution to the challenges facing Social Security. We will do it without compromising the current system. And we will do it in a way that places us square on the course to long-term opportunity for all Americans. Promises made are promises that should be kept. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I feel the responsibility of making sure Social Security remains strong and viable in the lives of those who depend on it. Today, we have an irreplaceable opportunity to do this. Personal retirement accounts--funded by budget surpluses--can both return real benefits to working Americans and demonstrate how to fix the problems of Social Security. There are still a number of technical questions we need to answer in developing personal retirement accounts legislation that can pass Congress this year. Toward this end, I will continue to work with my staff, and I welcome the views and advice of colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, we live in an era of great events--a moment when opportunity seized in a thoughtful and timely manner will allow us to make history. Today I want to show how conditions that have been created by our efforts to strengthen the economy and bring down the deficit can not only save Social Security in the short term, but begin today to strengthen it for our children and for generations yet to come. Saving Social Security is a promise we have made to Americans--both young and old. It's a promise that President Clinton reiterated in his most recent State of the Union Address. And it's a promise that we can keep, despite the challenging demographics and declining trend lines that currently point to a bleak future for a program that many would say is the most important contract our government has ever entered into with the American people. Social Security has saved countless men, women and children from poverty. It protects our elderly, our disabled, their families, and dependents of workers who have died. In its 63-year history--and despite pressing challenges--Social Security has been a success. More than 40 percent of our seniors are kept out of poverty because of Social Security. In fact, our seniors today have the lowest rate of poverty among all age groups. Forty years ago, more than one of every three elderly Americans lived in poverty. Today it's one in ten. But Social Security is much more than protection in retirement. Because of congressional efforts to expand the program, one out of every six Americans--or some 44 million people--receive a monthly Social Security check. But today, Social Security faces insolvency. It is a pay-as-you-go, inter-generational transfer of money. Money received by Social Security beneficiaries is paid by taxes coming from today's workers. And the benefits today's workers will receive will be paid by their children. And this, Madam President, is the root of the problem, because those who are supporting the system are declining in relation to those who depend on Social Security. In the early days of the program, there were as many as 42 workers per beneficiary. Today, there are 3.2. And in 2030, just 2 workers will support each individual receiving Social Security. Given current trends, tax revenues to the Social Security trust funds will no longer cover benefit payments beginning in 2012. Social Security will need to call upon assets that are just now accumulating in the trust funds and invested in U.S. Treasury bonds. Cashing in those bonds will put major pressure on the Federal budget--crowding out other important spending. Even so, by 2029 the bonds will be gone. Social Security will then be able to cover only 75 percent of benefit payments directly from revenues. This, Madam President, does not need to happen. We can save Social Security, and we can strengthen it well into the future. A part of the solution is as simple as it is powerful. Dr. Martin Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University and the President of the prestigious National Economic Research Bureau, has proposed using budget surpluses to fund personal retirement accounts for working Americans. In November of 1997, and then again last month, Dr. Feldstein published two op-eds outlining his proposal in the Wall Street Journal. I ask unanimous consent that the February op-ed be entered into the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I rise today to respond to the charge that has been made in a number of newspapers over the last week--and particularly by the New York Times--that the public, Congress, and the Senate, in particular, has paid inadequate attention to the policy of NATO enlargement. Few issues of national security have been as extensively examined as NATO enlargement. It has been the topic of countless editorials and opinion pieces in national and local papers. Over the last two years some fifteen states, including the First State, Delaware, have passed resolutions endorsing NATO enlargement. This policy has been formally endorsed by countless civic, public policy, political, business, labor, and veterans organizations. I ask unanimous consent that a list of these organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH. Congress, in particular, has led the charge for NATO enlargement. Its committees have examined in detail the military, intelligence, foreign policy, and budgetary implications of this long overdue initiative. Since last July alone, twelve hearings have been conducted on NATO enlargement by the Senate committees on Foreign Relations, Armed Services Appropriations, and Budget. The Senate NATO Observer Group, which I chair with Senator Joseph R. Biden, has convened 17 times with, among others, the President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, NATO's Secretary General, and the leaders of the three invitee countries. Madam President, allow me to single out Senator Helms, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, for his outstanding set of eight hearings on this initiative. He and his colleagues on the Committee have produced a hearing report of some 600 pages addressing all the pro and con argument over NATO enlargement. And, I urge my colleagues to take time to examine the committee report released last week. This examination, in my view, has yielded unambiguous conclusions: The extension of NATO membership to Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary will make the Alliance stronger. It will eliminate immoral and destabilizing dividing lines in Europe--divisions imposed by Stalin and perpetuated by the cold war. And, it will expand an inclusive zone of peace, democracy and stability in Europe to the benefit of the United States and to all countries of Europe, including Russia. It is no surprise--indeed a matter of pride--that the Senate has legislatively recommended NATO enlargement some fourteen times over the last 4 years. Perhaps, we should be asking ourselves how can we ensure that all dimensions of U.S. national security policy receive this much public attention and endorsement? Before I yield the floor, I want to echo these conclusions on NATO enlargement by sharing with my colleagues a letter I recently received from Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former National Security Advisor. In part, Dr. Brzezinski wrote: Without the security that the Euro-Atlantic Alliance has provided, the Franco-German reconciliation--so central to Europe's peace--would never have taken place. Without NATO, the ongoing German-Polish Reconciliation would not be happening. With NATO enlarged, a genuine reconciliation between the former Soviet satellites and Russia will be both truly possible and likely. The fact is that a larger NATO--by resolving the fateful European dilemma posed by the disproportionate power of Germany and of Russia, a dilemma the Europeans have not been able to resolve on their own--will create a secure framework for a more comprehensive reconciliation in Europe. Denmark, Norway and Canada have already ratified NATO enlargement. Germany is poised to do so very soon. Hesitation or delay by America, not to speak of rejection, would gravely undermine confidence in U.S. Leadership while strengthening those who want to cut down U.S. Influence in Europe. . . . And Dr. Brzezinski added, I hate to think what message it would send to the 100 million Central Europeans who only recently recovered their freedom. Dr. Brzezinski's letter--which I will submit for the Record--not only encapsulates the need for an enlarged NATO, it also reminds us how that this chamber's impending debate and vote on NATO enlargement will reverberate throughout the transatlantic region. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, the NCAA tournament is called by some the `Big Dance' because only 64 teams are invited each year. This year, I am proud to say one of those teams is the Fighting Blue Hens from the University of Delaware--the 1998 champions of the America East Conference. The Blue Hens put together a remarkable 20 win season culminating last Saturday in a win over Boston University to clinch a spot in the tournament. Coach Mike Brey and his team should be proud of their excellent season. Now some will say that the odds are long because the Blue Hens are seeded 15th and their opponent is seeded 2nd. But I remind you, more than 200 years ago, another group of men from Delaware faced some steep odds themselves. Back then, the number one seed was the Red Coats. Facing off against the Red Coats was a company of men from Delaware recruited by Captain Jonathan Caldwell. They quickly became known as the Blue Hens because their fighting ability was said to rival that of a famous fighting blue hen. They fought well and hard in battles from Long Island and White Plains to Trenton and Princeton. Two hundred years ago somebody picked a fight with the Blue Hens and they were sent home packing. Don't be surprised if it happens again.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for unanimously adopting this resolution. I believe this vote of 100 to 0 lets Thailand and the Thai people know the heartfelt sentiments of the Senate and the American people toward bilateral friendship and partnership. It also makes clear our recognition of the strides Bangkok has been making in executing its responsibilities under its arrangements with the International Monetary Fund. Only last week, for example, Thailand deepened its commitment to economic reform by pledging to speed up privatizations and the reorganization of its banking system. This week the new Prime Minister of Thailand, Chuan Leekpai, will visit the United States. Many of us will have the chance to meet him when he comes to visit Capitol Hill. While Prime Minister Chuan faces many challenges in the coming months and years, I hope and trust the support for Thailand that he will find in this country will help him in overcoming those challenges. As I have said before, I believe that all of us in this Chamber--and Americans all across this land--are great admirers of Thailand and Thai culture. I remain optimistic about Thailand's future. Given the Thai people's energy and initiative, the country's remarkable history, and its record of economic success, I look forward to seeing Thailand's return to prosperity in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, few have had as distinguished a career in the Senate as Howell Heflin, our former colleague from the great state of Alabama. One of the ways through which I came to know and appreciate the indomitable optimism and warmth of Senator Heflin was through our work together as chairmen of the Senate Delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly. The NAA brings together on a regular basis parliamentary and legislative leaders of NATO's 16 nations to discuss matters of transatlantic concern, generate initiatives addressing key challenges, and reinforce this strategic partnership. Senator Heflin was not only an outstanding representative of the Senate to the Assembly and an ardent supporter of the NATO Alliance, but he was also an energetic and persuasive leader on an important initiative before us today, NATO enlargement. I recently corresponded with Senator Heflin. He brought to my attention a speech on NATO enlargement by Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre delivered on Veteran's day before an audience in Birmingham. Senator Heflin suggested that I submit this speech for the Record, and I gladly do so. It's a strong articulation of the moral and strategic underpinnings of NATO enlargement. It decisively addresses the key concerns voiced by those who still harbor reservations about this policy. I urge my colleagues to take Senator Heflin's advice and read this speech. The speech follows: Remarks by Deputy Secretary Hamre at Birmingham World Peace Luncheon, 11 November 1997 Senator Jeff Sessions, Senator Howell Heflin, Congressman Spencer Bachus, and Mayor Richard Arrington. It is great to be in Birmingham on Veterans' Day. The sons and daughters of Birmingham have served our nation both on the battlefront and on the homefront. So many served in World War II that this area was known as the ``great arsenal of the South.'' November 11th is set aside to honor all veterans of American wars. But I would like to single out two individual veterans today because their feats in uniform are a tribute to all veterans. In fact, their names are inscribed in the Hall of Heroes at the Pentagon, which honors America's Medal of Honor winners. We are fortunate to have these two heroes seated with us today: Bill Lawley and Lee Mize. Bill received his Medal of Honor after World War II for flying his damaged B-17 and his crew to safety in spite of his terrible wounds and continued enemy attacks. Lee received his Medal of Honor after the Korean War for almost single-handedly defending a strategic outpost from brutal and continuous enemy assaults, and then leading the counterattack that drove the enemy off. Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of all veterans here and everywhere, let's show our appreciation to these two American heroes. Colonels Lawley and Mize--and all their comrades-in-arms-- did a great deal to make America safe, both at home and abroad. Let me share with you a story--a true story. It now seems so long ago, but let me remind you of events back in 1989 before the Warsaw Pact collapsed and before the Berlin Wall came down. At that time there was an announcement by Hungary that they would not block East German citizens living in Hungary from emigrating to West Germany. Within days of that announcement East German citizens started showing up in Budapest. Some 800 individuals, as I recall, were ``camping'' in the yard at the West German embassy in Budapest. It became a crisis--what to do with them all. After a day or so the West German government rented an entire train and transported these East German refugees to Frankfurt. I recall how CNN was on the scene, showing the train as it slowly moved west. The night it arrived in Frankfurt a CNN news crew was on the scene and interviewing the refugees. I recall they cornered a young German couple--probably in the mid-20s. The wife was holding an infant. After asking a series of inane questions, the reporter asked the Germans, ``Is there anything you would like to say?'' The man said, ``Yes, there is something I would like to say. I would like to thank America for keeping a place in the world that is free.'' For me, it was a stunning moment. The United States decided after painful deliberation to retain troops in Europe. We had spent hundreds of billions of dollars during the Cold War maintaining a tense peace. And just when many Americans were getting tired and forgetting what it was all about, this young German said in such simple words what it all amounted to--``keeping a place in the world that is free.'' Right now, America is at relative peace. But it is an uneasy peace because we face new dangers of regional aggression, terrorism, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Just look at the headlines--Iraq rattling its saber, North Korea threatening and unstable, conflict brewing just below the surface in Bosnia. The challenge before our nation today was posed recently by a scholar named Donald Kagan in his book, On the Origins of War. He writes that: ``A persistent and repeated error through the ages has been the failure to understand that the preservation of peace requires active effort, planning, the expenditure of resources, and sacrifice, just as war does.'' President Clinton and Secretary Cohen are determined that the United States will not fail to seize the opportunity to preserve peace. Today, I want to talk about how we are going to preserve peace in Europe. The United States has devoted too much blood and treasure in two World Wars and a Cold War. The key to preventing war in Europe in the 21st Century is to spread the democracy, stability, and prosperity of Western Europe into Eastern and Central Europe, all the way to Russia. And the key to that is by enlarging NATO--inviting new members into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Last summer, President Clinton and his 15 NATO counterparts took the historic step of inviting three former communist countries--Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--to join NATO in 1999. But before this can happen, it must be approved by the citizens of all 16 NATO nations through their elected legislatures, including the United States Senate. This is a very serious decision for American and our Senate to make. Fifty years ago, when George Marshall proposed the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe after World War II, he went around the country explaining the importance of rebuilding Europe. As a result, the Marshall Plan--in Harry Truman's words--was ``more than the creation of statesmen. It comes from the minds and hearts of the people.'' NATO enlargement must also come from the minds and hearts of the people. As President Clinton said, ``Because [NATO enlargement] is not without cost and risk, it is appropriate to have an open, full, national discussion.'' As the Senate prepares to consider NATO enlargement, it is crucial that all Americans join in this debate. We especially need to hear from our veterans. It is your voice--the voice of the American veteran--that must be heard in support of NATO enlargement. We must remind America how the fiery hatreds of Europe drew us into World War I. Too many failed to make it to the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, the anniversary we honor today. We all must remind Americans how this ``lost generation'' served and sacrificed to give America a chance to build a safer Europe for the next generation. We must warn them how, when the guns of November fell silent, American ignored the embers of hatred that still smoldered in Europe, and we missed the opportunity to prevent another war. To those who would turn our backs on Europe today, tell them the price our veterans paid in World War II as Hitler stoked the embers of hate into the deadliest war in human history. Tell them how sons returned to the very same terrain that their fathers had died to set free, as they plunged into the crashing surf at Normandy. A reporter for Star and Stripes was there, and filed this searing dispatch: ``There have been only a handful of days since the beginning of time in which the direction the world was taking has been changed for the better in one 24-hour period by an act of man. June 6, 1944 was one of them. What the Americans, the British, and the Canadians were trying to do was to get back an entire continent that had been taken from its rightful owners, whose citizens had been taken captive. It was one of the most monumentally unselfish things that one group of people ever did for another.'' That D-Day observer was today's Andy Rooney of ``60 Minutes'' fame. We cannot turn our backs on Europe today. The generation that won the second World War gave us a second chance to build a safer world. The Marshall Plan offered an American hand of help and hope, to lift Europe out of the slough of despair and snuff the embers of war forever. Western Europe embraced the Marshall Plan and built strong democracies, strong economies, and a strong alliance called NATO. But the other half of Europe was denied the Marshall Plan when Joseph Stalin slammed down the Iron Curtain on America's helping hand. But still, America did not turn its back. Through the long winter of the Cold War, we stood again with the free people of Europe. And today, having emerged victorious from that long, twilight struggle, we have an historic opportunity and a very sober challenge. We must complete George Marshall's vision for a Europe healed, whole, and free to ensure that Americans never again have to fight and die on European battlefields. The key is for NATO to reach out across the old Cold War divides, to nurture the new democracies in Eastern and Central Europe that have emerged from the iron grip of Soviet domination, and, when these countries are ready, willing, and able to join the Western Alliance, to invite them to join NATO. That is what NATO has done. And today, when you visit the old capitals of the former Warsaw Pact nations, you can see a new spring in the air--of liberty, prosperity, and national security. The lines of commerce and communications are criss- crossing the old Cold War fault lines, knitting the continent closer together. Former NATO enemies are seizing every opportunity to meet, engage, and exercise their militaries with NATO--and three of these nations are now ready to join the Alliance. This is a major step and we must have a full national debate. Some will argue that making NATO larger is going to make NATO weaker and therefore weaken America. I believe the reverse is true; a larger NATO reflects a wider allegiance to our values. Veterans of our European wars know the power of military alliances in deterring and defeating a common enemy. It was the creation of NATO in 1949 that halted Soviet designs on Western Europe. It was the enlargement of NATO with Greece, Turkey, West Germany, and Spain that helped to strengthen the wall of democracy. And thanks to NATO, no American blood has been shed fighting another war in Europe for more than 50 years. So enlarging NATO with Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic is going to carry that promise into the next century. Some argue that these countries aren't ready to bear the burdens of membership. But in the past few months, our national security leaders have visited these nations and they came away convinced that the Poles, the Hungarians, and the Czechs fully intend to carry their responsibilities to contribute to the Alliance, not just benefit from it. Some argue that by enlarging NATO we are going to be creating new lines of division in Europe. But in fact, NATO is at the center of a new dynamic in Europe that is rapidly erasing these old lines and bridging over old divisions. The mere prospect of jointing NATO has unleashed a powerful impetus for peace on that continent. Old rivals have settled their historic disputes and they have struck new accords and arrangements. Poland and Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine, Hungary and Romania, Italy and Slovenia, Germany and the Czech Republic--all have healed border disputes and other kinds of controversies that in the past have erupted into war. More than that, these old rivals are sealing these new ties by working together in the conference rooms and the training fields under NATO auspices. Some argue that enlarging NATO is going to create new tensions and divisions in Russia and jeopardize Russia's move to democracy and its cooperation with the West. But in numerous actions, large and small, NATO and Russia are forging new links to overcome these old divisions. NATO and Russian air forces are now making authorized observation flights over each other's territory. Last spring, NATO and Russia signed a Founding Act that gives Russia a voice in-- but not a vote or a veto over--NATO deliberations. And for the past two years, Russian and American troops have been serving together in Bosnia, going out on joint patrols to settle disputes before they ignite into conflict. Finally, there are those who claim that NATO enlargement will cost too much. But alliances actually save money because they promote cooperation, interoperability, and they reduce redundancy. Simply put, it costs America less to defend our interests in Europe if Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are in alliance with us, just as it costs them less to defend their interests by joining hands in the alliance itself. And we estimate that the cost to the United States each year over the next decade will be less than one-tenth of one percent of our defense budget. The costs of enlarging NATO are meager when weighed against the cost of potential instability and aggression in Europe if we fail to enlarge. George Marshall knew the cost of war in Europe. He said it is ``spread before us, written neatly in the ledger, whose volumes are grave stones.'' Well, today, there are more than 70,000 such volumes written across Europe, the grave stones of Americans who rest where they fell, liberating a continent. And so their sacrifice echoes down to us through the decades from the hillsides in Florence, from the sloping green in Luxembourg, from the dignified rows on a cliff overlooking the Normandy shore. They did not serve, they did not sacrifice, they did not die for us so that we could walk away from the lands that they freed. It's their voices that we have to heed and the voices of every veteran of every conflict that we have ever fought. You know it is better to pay the price for peace than suffer the cost of war. John F. Kennedy once said, ``A nation reveals itself not only by the individuals it produces, but also by those it honors, those it remembers.'' Here, today, on behalf of every man and woman who serves in the Department of Defense, let me say thank you to Birmingham. Thank you for remembering. Too many Americans observe Veterans Day in shopping malls. Too many school kids think of Veterans Day as a holiday. Too few cities pause to honor their native sons and daughters--the quiet heroes of freedom. But not Birmingham. It is because of Birmingham that America still keeps places in the world that are free. Every Veterans Day, America reveals its commitment to our armed forces by honoring and remembering the sacrifices of America's veterans. So I want to thank all the citizens of Birmingham for hosting this special event for 50 years and for making veterans everywhere feel like the heroes they are. And I want to thank all our veterans for keeping our nation safe and our citizens secure. God bless our veterans . . . God bless Birmingham . . . and God bless the United States of America.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today, I rise to state my unequivocal support for a federal ban on human cloning. However, I am uncomfortable with the hurried pace with which this issue is being considered in the Senate. The issue before us is both extremely complex and consequential. Regulating the very cutting edge of medical science will impact our fights against nearly every category of disease, including cancer, heart disease, blindness, Parkinsons and Alzheimers diseases to name but a few. The United States must maintain its preeminent position as the international leader in biotechnological research, but do so while adhering to the highest moral and ethical standards. Any prohibition of cloning needs to be very carefully constructed and tested by public hearing to assure that both of these goals might be fulfilled. The Food and Drug Administration has claimed authority to regulate this technology now, eliminating the need for immediate legislative action. Knowing this, and with lives at stake, I believe all Senators should have the opportunity to benefit from a thorough public examination of this proposal. For these reasons, I will not support cloture on the motion to consider S. 1601 in hopes that this matter will be further evaluated at the committee level.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce nine bills to suspend temporarily the imposition of duties on the importation of certain products. I am pleased to introduce six bills to suspend temporarily the imposition of duties on imports of certain chemicals used in the production of pesticides. These chemicals are deltamethrin, diclofop- methyl, piperonyl butoxide, resmethrin, thidiazuron and tralomethrin. By temporarily suspending the imposition of duties, these bills would help AgrEvo USA, a company located in Wilmington, Delaware, lower its cost of production and improve its competitiveness. I am also pleased to introduce three bills to suspend temporarily the imposition of duties on imports of Pigment Yellow 109, Yellow 110 and Pigment Red 177. These high quality coloring materials are imported for sale in the United States by Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation (Pigments Division), a company located in Newport, Delaware. By temporarily suspending the imposition of duties, these bills will reduce significantly the cost of coloring materials that are used in a wide variety of finished products, including automotive parts, vinyl flooring, carpet fibers and plastic utensils. I ask unanimous consent that these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce nine bills to suspend temporarily the imposition of duties on the importation of certain products. I am pleased to introduce six bills to suspend temporarily the imposition of duties on imports of certain chemicals used in the production of pesticides. These chemicals are deltamethrin, diclofop- methyl, piperonyl butoxide, resmethrin, thidiazuron and tralomethrin. By temporarily suspending the imposition of duties, these bills would help AgrEvo USA, a company located in Wilmington, Delaware, lower its cost of production and improve its competitiveness. I am also pleased to introduce three bills to suspend temporarily the imposition of duties on imports of Pigment Yellow 109, Yellow 110 and Pigment Red 177. These high quality coloring materials are imported for sale in the United States by Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation (Pigments Division), a company located in Newport, Delaware. By temporarily suspending the imposition of duties, these bills will reduce significantly the cost of coloring materials that are used in a wide variety of finished products, including automotive parts, vinyl flooring, carpet fibers and plastic utensils. I ask unanimous consent that these bills be printed in the Record.