William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distribution tables for 1998-2002 on the conference report to H.R. 2014, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, as prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation be printed in the Record. The distribution tables show that the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 is a substantial tax cut for America's overtaxed middle-income families.

Mr. ROTH. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct. I thank the Senator for his cooperation on this issue.

Mr. ROTH. I agree with both Senators and look forward to working with both of you on these issues in the future. Child Health Provisions

Mr. ROTH. I agree with the Senator's interpretation of this provision of the bill.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. First, I would like to say that I joined my distinguished colleagues, Senators Moynihan and D'Amato in opposing the repeal of the tax exemption for TIAA and CREF in conference. However, the Senate did not prevail. In light of this unfortunate result, I believe the intent of the bill is that CREF should be taxed consistent with its unique structure and apart from TIAA.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, once again, I urge Members of the Senate to support my waiver. If my colleague is ready, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided between the two sides.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, my colleague's argument brings to mind a letter from a fellow Delawarean who reminded me of the wisdom of President Abraham Lincoln. Quoting our 16th President, Mr. Robert Hall, of Hockessin, DE, reminded me that: You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * * * You cannot establish sound security by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. Only by keeping the economy strong can we balance the budget. And one certain way to strengthen the economy is to keep our burden of taxation reasonable, keep it at a level that provides initiative and incentives for risk-taking and thrift. History has proven that tax cuts stimulate economic growth. The Mellon tax cuts at the turn of the century created incredible prosperity for America. President Kennedy's cuts stimulated the economy in the 1960's, and in the 1980's, Kemp-Roth led to the longest peacetime economic expansion in history. Eighteen million new jobs were created, along with 4 million new businesses. Family income rose and homeownership boomed as interest rates and inflation fell. At the same time, Treasury revenues more than doubled, not because Americans were paying a higher percentage of their income to taxes, but because Americans had higher incomes. The truth is, Mr. President, that had Congress held the line on spending, the windfall to Treasury created by the Kemp-Roth tax cuts would have put a stake in the heart of the deficit. However, instead of controlling its appetite to spend--something we're trying earnestly to do, now, Congress shackled America with the 1990 tax increase. Then, 2 years later, President Clinton imposed the largest tax increase in history on Americans. With this package, we begin to reverse these trends, and history is on our side. A responsible tax cut will strengthen the power of an expanding economy for our families and Nation. At the moment, the average American family pays 40 percent of its income to taxes, and the current Federal system is counterproductive to economic growth. It double-taxes savings, thwarts investment, hinders productivity, increases prices, stifles wages, and hurts exports. It is complex and places disincentives on work. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I intend, to see this reconciliation package through, and then, in coming months, I intend to turn our attention to comprehensive tax reform. We will work for a fairer, simpler plan that does away with the negative consequences of the current system--a plan that encourages savings and promotes American exports. But first we must keep our promise of the tax cuts we've proposed for the American people. This legislation keeps that promise. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Utah.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. There are many people who are responsible for bringing together this important piece of legislation, and I strongly agree with what the distinguished Senator from New Mexico said about the Speaker and the majority leader. They provided not only strong leadership but ideas, were able to move ahead, and I have to say I could not agree more that the Speaker showed every ability of providing the kind of leadership we needed from the House in order to get this complex piece of legislation through. I would just like to say to my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Domenici, that the legislation would have gotten nowhere if it had not been for him. I know no one in the Senate, or House for that matter, that has a better understanding of the budgetary process, knows the issues with which we are dealing and who has devoted, what is it, 7 or 8 months' time to getting this job accomplished. I would also like to say in the same context I think Bill Hoagland has been a tremendous strength for this whole process. I, too, join the Senator in congratulating the ranking member, my colleague and friend from New Jersey, for his outstanding work.

Mr. ROTH. Could I ask the distinguished chairman to yield just for a minute?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it is my hope that the spirit of bipartisanship that carried us through this effort continues as we now consider the final package and send the bill to President Clinton for his signature. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rick Werner, a detailee to the Finance Committee from the Department of Health and Human Services, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on this conference report.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the budget reconciliation conference between the Senate and House has come to an end. All sides have weighed in. The process has been long and involved, around the clock, through the weekends. But I must say the result is well worth the exercise. What we have achieved is a balance, a carefully crafted compromise between the Senate and the House, between Republicans and Democrats, between Congress and the White House. I can say with certainty that no Senator, no Congressman, not even the President got everything he or she would have liked. Undoubtedly there are specifics in this final package that I would prefer to have seen written differently. But I can say that, while there were necessary compromises to achieve balance and to deliver the budget reconciliation to the American people, there was no compromise on principle. Differences? Certainly, but I cannot remember the last time I saw such a positive, bipartisan willingness to work together in a budget effort. This, I believe, is because there has been a profound change in the nature and character of Washington. Two recent proclamations demonstrate this change. The first was President Clinton's declaration in his State of the Union Address that the era of big Government is over. And the second came from our distinguished colleague, Senator Daschle, when, during this debate, he agreed that the question in Congress is no longer whether or not taxes should be cut, rather a question of how much they should be cut. Cutting taxes and achieving a balanced budget have long been Republican objectives. For years now, we have advocated the need to change the way Washington does business. Now President Clinton and the distinguished minority leader demonstrate the growing bipartisan consensus on these objectives, objectives that underscore this reconciliation package. It is a strong first step. It signals that the era of big government is over. Certainly government has its place. There are moral and contractual obligations that the Federal Government must maintain with the American people. Many are enumerated in the Constitution. Others, like Medicare and Medicaid, are more recent and have become critically important to those who depend on them now and to those who rely on them for the future. Having said this, I believe a clear and growing majority realizes that the Federal Government is not the answer to all that challenges us. In fact, in some cases, the Government is shown to be the problem, particularly when it comes to waste, fraud, abuse, inefficiency, and a top-heavy, unresponsive bureaucracy. The ability of both sides to compromise on this bill demonstrates that Washington acknowledges this reality and that Washington is responding to the attendant frustration and legitimate concerns felt by Americans everywhere. Beyond signaling an end to big and inefficient government, this package meets several other shared criteria. It places us squarely and honestly on the road to a balanced budget by the year 2002. We all know how important this is. The United States has not balanced a Federal budget since 1969. This, despite the fact that our Founders made it clear that saddling future generations with debt is immoral. According to Thomas Jefferson, the question of whether one generation has a right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. Jefferson said that we should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts; we are morally bound to pay those debts ourselves. This budget reconciliation package is the first in years that puts us back where we must be. It is balanced. It begins to address the dilemma of big government's licentious legacy, a legacy that burdens every man, woman, and child with almost $20,000 in public debt. I am happy to say that our majority leader, Senator Lott, made it clear at the beginning of the 105th Congress that balancing the budget in 5 years would be one of our top priorities. Mr. President, we have delivered on that promise. Our third objective has been to strengthen the programs that would be influenced by our actions. The reforms to entitlement that are contained in this package are, indeed, historic. We make significant and important changes to Medicare and Medicaid. We strengthen assistance to children. We return authority and means to our States so they can better meet the needs of their citizens. It was not enough to simply change entitlement programs to reduce their rate of growth. We sought in the process to improve, to strengthen them, to preserve them, and, again, we succeeded. Let me give you the specifics. But before I do that, let me reiterate that we were able to accomplish these significant objectives because of a growing consensus on both sides of the political aisle, and because of our willingness to compromise, compromise not on principles but for principles. In our effort to control spending, the largest program we addressed was Medicare. Our objective here was not just to control its spending, but to strengthen the Medicare Program for the long term, and we did this. We did this by increasing choice and competition within the program. Choice within the Medicare Program will give beneficiaries myriad options. It will allow them to participate in HMO's, PPO's, PSO's and private fee-for-service programs. We have based our expansion of choice in the Medicare Program on the successful Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Through these options, seniors will be able to obtain important benefits, like prescription drugs, that are not covered by traditional Medicare. These changes and the money they will save also allow us to expand Medicare coverage for certain important preventive services, including mammography, prostate colorectal screening, bone mass measurement, and diabetes management. Beyond increasing choice and competition within Medicare, we strengthen and preserve the program by slowing its rate of spending growth. Our measures save Medicare for another 10 years, while still increasing program spending per beneficiary from $5,500 this year to $6,800 in the year 2002. Beyond encouraging choice and competition, this bill introduces important innovations into the Medicare Program, innovations that could go a long way toward strengthening the program for future generations. One very important innovation is the creation of a demonstration project that will explore the advantages of having medical savings accounts available within the Medicare Program. This demonstration project will allow up to 390,000 Medicare beneficiaries to opt into an MSA program, a program that will allow them to choose a high-deductible Medicare choice plan. I believe medical savings accounts will be an important component of Medicare's long-term viability, and to study and recommend other innovations, our legislation creates a national bipartisan commission on the future of Medicare. Senator Moynihan and I called for this commission back in February as we realized that to realize long-term solutions for the program, we needed a commission that would be above politics. This will be a 17-member commission established for a little more than a year. Its task will be to make recommendations to Congress on actions necessary to ensure the long-term fiscal health of the Medicare Program. It will report back to Congress on March 1, 1999, and these changes to Medicare will result in a net savings of $115 billion over 5 years, savings that will not only help us balance the budget, but savings and reforms that will preserve the Medicare Program while ensuring that it continues to serve those who depend on it now. Concerning Medicaid, we were able to achieve a total savings of $13 billion. This savings will come largely from a reduction in disproportionate share, or DSH payments, and by giving our States more flexibility in how they run the program. For more than a decade, there has been a tug of war between the Federal Government and the States over Medicaid. Each side has tried to assert its will over the other. From the mid-1980's and through the early 1990's, the Federal Government imposed mandates on the States and, in turn, the States shifted costs to the Federal Government. The result was devastating to all of our budgets as Medicaid routinely grew at a double-digit pace, reaching as high as a 29-percent increase in 1992. This legislative package marks a new beginning, a new trend. It marks a change in the Washington mindset that has sought, since the days of the New Deal over 60 years ago, to centralize power in this city. With this substantive change in the Medicaid Program, we are offering our Governors the tools they need to control this program. This, I believe, is the way things should be done. With this bill, they will be able to move more individuals into managed care without waiting years for waivers from the Federal Government. They will be able to contract with selected provider for services. The States will be able to ask families to take some responsibility for the decisions they make when seeking health care services. This power at the State level will go a long ways toward stretching Government health care dollars. As I said, beyond making significant and important changes to Medicare and Medicaid, we have strengthened assistance to our children to meet the health care needs of the most vulnerable among us. It became clear through the conference that both sides of the aisle are equally committed to increasing access to health care for as many children as we can. Both sides of the aisle are committed to finding an answer to the problem of uninsured children in this country, and this legislation represents an important agreement in this area. It creates a new program, a program that covers low-income, uninsured children. The process of providing insurance and health care coverage to vulnerable American children is complex. As I have said before, of the 71 million children in the United States, more than 86 percent are already covered by some type of health insurance. Two-thirds of our children are covered by insurance through the private sector. Twenty- three percent of all children in the United States under age 18 are covered by Medicaid, and another 3 percent are covered by other public insurance programs. Our plan provides $24 billion over the next 5 years to be used by States in a manner that provides them flexibility in how they will expand health care coverage to our children. Our States will have two mechanisms of establishing programs. They can expand their Medicaid coverage or they can create their own program to address the particular needs of the children in their States. And while the Governors are given certain flexibility in the way they can use this money, our bill requires that they meet specific standards regarding health care coverage for children. Expanding Medicaid is certainly a choice States have made. Thirty- nine have expanded Medicaid eligibility for pregnant women and children beyond the Federal requirements. But States are also developing other strategies for increasing coverage of children as well. There are already public-private partnerships in more than half of our States. There are successful programs such as New York's Child Health Plus and Florida's Healthy Kids. These innovative programs and programs like them can grow with these additional resources provided by this legislation. These, Mr. President, are the major provisions of this legislation. They signal a new beginning in Washington--real reforms to make programs more cost-effective, more efficient, more responsive to the needs of our people and our States. Great care has been taken to assure that the most vulnerable among us are protected, and this includes our provision to restore benefits to all legal noncitizens who were receiving Social Security when last year's welfare bill was signed into law. With this legislation, we also restore the ability to receive benefits to legal noncitizens who were residing in the United States as of that date should they become disabled in the future. These protections, however, are handled appropriately and in keeping with our overarching goal of restoring fiscal responsibility to Government. With this reconciliation package, we have establish the first balanced budget since 1969. We have met the criterion given us in the May 2d budget compromise, and we will give Americans the first real tax relief package that they have had in 16 years. Did we accomplish everything I would have liked to accomplish? No. I would have preferred to see some deeper, more significant fiscal restraint. I would have preferred to see a few other major reforms to Medicare, reforms that would have gone a long way toward strengthening the program, and these include the provisions that were in the original Senate package. But recall, Mr. President, the history of the balanced budget debate; recall Congress' effort in November 1995 to balance the budget by the year 2002; recall the consequent Government shutdown and Bill Clinton's veto; recall the President's 10-year balanced budget plan and Congress insisting that balance could be achieved 5 years earlier. Keep the history in mind, and the success of this legislation becomes clear. We have a balanced budget. That balanced budget will be achieved in 5 years, not 10. And we have achieved it without acrimony, without Government shutdowns, and without vetoes. This is a bipartisan effort. It is an excellent beginning. And I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work, for the spirit of cooperation that existed on the Finance Committee, on the floor of the Senate, and throughout the conference. I am especially grateful to my friend, Pat Moynihan, for his wise counsel, his leadership, and cooperation in helping to bring about the success of this package. I am also grateful to the professional staff members on the Senate Finance Committee, as well as the Senate Budget Committee. Likewise, I want to thank the staffs of the Congressional Research Service and the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Legislative Council in the Senate, the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission, the Physician Payment Review Commission, the General Accounting Office, and all others who have worked long and hard for this package. The list of names is too long to read here, but I ask unanimous consent that these names be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to suspend the duty through December 31, 1999, on a product commonly known as ACM or [3-(Acetoxy)-3-cyanopropyl] methyl-phosphinic acid butylester, which falls under subheading 2931.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. ACM is an essential ingredient in the production of glufosinate ammonium, a patented nonselective, broad-spectrum herbicide, manufactured by AgrEvo USA under the brand name Liberty and used primarily in corn and soybean cultivation. The cost to import ACM currently comprises roughly 90 percent of the total cost of manufacturing glufosinate ammonium. Suspension of this duty will substantially lower AgrEvo's cost of production and thereby improve the company's competitiveness.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to suspend the duty through December 31, 1999, on a product commonly known as ACM or [3-(Acetoxy)-3-cyanopropyl] methyl-phosphinic acid butylester, which falls under subheading 2931.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. ACM is an essential ingredient in the production of glufosinate ammonium, a patented nonselective, broad-spectrum herbicide, manufactured by AgrEvo USA under the brand name Liberty and used primarily in corn and soybean cultivation. The cost to import ACM currently comprises roughly 90 percent of the total cost of manufacturing glufosinate ammonium. Suspension of this duty will substantially lower AgrEvo's cost of production and thereby improve the company's competitiveness.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as the Senate moves toward concluding its business before the August recess, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the circumstances surrounding the Finance Committee's consideration of legislation to implement the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement. This vital agreement has already been the subject of a hearing in the Finance Committee in December 1995, and, in May 1996, the Committee voted unanimously in favor of the legislation to implement the Agreement. I understand my Finance Committee colleagues, Senators Lott and Breaux, have made substantial progress in resolving the controversial issues surrounding some parts of the legislation originally reported by the Finance Committee. I expect that their work on the implementing legislation and the resolution of certain procedural issues will be concluded shortly so that we can complete committee consideration and congressional passage of this bill as soon as possible after we return in September. I trust the other signatory countries to the Shipbuilding Agreement will understand that the recent delay in the Finance Committee's consideration of the implementing legislation was unavoidable--that it was simply a result of the committee's need to complete its work on the hallmark legislation to balance the U.S. budget and need to resolve certain parliamentary questions. This delay should in no way be interpreted as a lack of resolve to bring the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement implementing legislation to closure. I strongly urge other signatory countries not to take any action that might forever compromise our long-held goal of achieving free and fair trade in the global shipbuilding sector. It is my view that the United States is very close--closer than it has ever been--to enacting the legislation necessary for completion of U.S. ratification of the agreement. It would be terribly counterproductive and inappropriate for other signatory countries to abandon this important agreement at this juncture in reaction to this relatively minor and unavoidable delay. With that clarification, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee and in the Senate as a whole in moving this critical legislation forward to ultimate passage by Congress as quickly as possible.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. We had two goals in this legislation: To provide tax relief to the family, to provide assistance for higher education to the families, and this carefully crafted compromise does exactly that. I yield what time is remaining to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of S. 949, the Tax Relief Act of 1997, and begin another lengthy series of rollcall votes. As previously ordered, the series of stacked rollcall votes will begin on or in relation to the Nickles amendment, followed by the Gramm amendment and the Kerry amendment. Following the disposition of the aforementioned stacked votes, the Senate will proceed to a vote on a number of process amendments under the control of Senator Domenici. After those amendments have been disposed of, Senators will have the right to offer an amendment to the bill, with 2 minutes of debate equally divided on the proposed amendment. However, it is hoped, and I would like to emphasize, that Members will refrain from offering amendments so that the Senate may complete action on this bill at a reasonable time.

Mr. ROTH. What is the order of business?

Mr. ROTH. I yield.

Mr. ROTH. I say to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, we have you on the list for three separate amendments.

Mr. ROTH. I say to the distinguished Senator and to my colleague, Senator Moynihan, that we have a list of both Republican and Democrat amendments. They are set in a particular order. We do intend to go from one side to the other side.