William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Yes.

Mr. ROTH. I yield myself such time as I may take. I say to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia I will be brief so that he can be recognized. Again, I want to emphasize what the factual situation is. The fact is that home health care has been exploding at roughly 30 percent a year or more, and this kind of increase in cost cannot be permitted if we are going to strengthen and preserve Medicare for the long term. So the proposal has been made to put a $5 copayment fee on each health care up to a limitation of $760, which is what is paid as a deductible under part A. This matter was discussed and unanimously agreed to in the Finance Committee by Republicans and Democrats alike. The reason it was agreed to is because it is important that these visits be available but they be used prudently and not without consideration to the cost. That is the reason we added it. Again, I want to emphasize that those 100 percent under poverty will not pay this $5 fee. It will be paid by Medicaid for them, so they are protected. But again, in reforming and restructuring Medicare, we are trying to do it in such a way that it strengthens and preserves the program for the long term. That in turn means it is essential that the utilization be done carefully, and that is what we seek to do and that is what the Finance Committee unanimously adopted.

Mr. ROTH. That is my understanding, I say to the distinguished chairman.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr President, it is no coincidence that the first balanced budget agreement in a generation has come about at a time when the economy is red hot and when joblessness has dropped below 4.9 percent. The expanding economy has been shrinking the deficit as well as the gulf between both sides of the budget debate. Any lingering distance between Congress and the administration was swept away on the eve of the budget agreement when the Congressional Budget Office predicted that a tidal wave of new money would flood the treasury in the next 5 years. These new CBO estimates project that even without a budget agreement, increased revenues and decreased outlays would shrink the deficit an additional $225 billion. Perhaps even more important than the first balanced budget in a generation, this tidal wave of new money has washed away the ground underneath opponents of growth. Nothing signified the victory of growth over zero-sum, class-warfare politics more clearly than the words of President Clinton's former Labor Secretary Robert Reich when he told the New York Times a few weeks ago, ``The fact is, a lot of the deficit solved itself. It was the one solution that no one thought of.'' Actually, it was the guiding philosophy of the Kemp-Roth tax cut. If I may quote Jack Kemp, ``Even with spending restraint, we cannot balance the budget consistently without economic growth.'' Mr President, on this point the record is quite clear. Following the tax cuts in the early eighties the economy did soar. But so did the deficit. The problem was, while revenues to the Federal Government doubled during the decade, spending more than doubled. In short, growth did its job--we just asked too much of it. The amount of wealth produced by our country was astounding and continues to be astounding. However, it is not limitless. So neither can our spending be limitless. We can protect the elderly and offer a helping hand to the poor, but only with solid growth in the economy. Without growth, the poor and elderly are pitted against each other in competition for meager resources, while the rich are vilified for their success. Left unchecked, these battles corrode the American dream. Mr President, I believe this budget represents a new coalition, bound by the common objective of higher growth. Because growth is the key to funding worthwhile social programs without unfairly burdening middle- class families. It is the key to providing a strong defense and a clean environment. It is the key to rebuilding the American dream. Growth has won the debate because it has proven itself. Even the more ardent opponents of growth oriented policies must realize that to raise $225 billion from taxpayers would require a typical middle-class family to pony up an additional $450 per year Some will argue that the huge Clinton tax increase of 1993 is responsible for the low deficit, high growth, low unemployment economy we now enjoy. But that ignores the fact that this economic expansion began during the Bush administration. Others say it is the information age, along with deregulation and corporate restructuring that strengthened our economy. Regardless of who is right, and I do have some thoughts on the subject, I relish such a debate about the connection between taxes and growth. What is no longer debatable is that growth is the key to higher income for all Americans as well as higher revenues for the Federal Government. Look how far we have come in just 5 years. When President Clinton took office, he offered a $19 billion dollar stimulus package predicated on the notation that private enterprise could not produce the jobs our country needed. We no longer harbor fears about the ability of America to produce for her citizens. Some make the point that this budget will only be balanced for 5 years. And this is true. It is also true that we face additional challenges beyond 2002 in both Social Security and Medicare, especially when the baby boom begins to retire. But the seeds of a solution to these long-term problems can also be found in this budget. Explicitly it restrains spending. Implicitly, it acknowledges that growth is the key to finding revenue for popular programs. Both sides of the American political conversation are now committed to playing within the bounds of fiscal restraint, while searching for ways to promote growth. This formula has served us well in the past and it will serve us well in the future. The old bromide is true. A rising tide does lift all boats. And the same tidal wave that has lifted millions of Americans to unprecedented new heights of prosperity in the past 6 years has also finally sunk that leaky old boat, class warfare. There are only two roads we can travel. One is to downsize the American dream and learn to live in a slow growth world; the other is to grow the economy up to level that makes the American dream possible. With this budget agreement, Congress and the President have decided its better to grow up.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I support Senator McCain's Sense of the Senate. I agree with my colleague from Arizona that Amtrak needs reforms. Amtrak must be able to operate more like a business. Senator Hutchison has recently introduced a major reform package which I support. Amtrak needs these reforms and they must be enacted this year. It is also very clear that Amtrak needs an adequate and reliable source of capital funding. Amtrak is currently borrowing to meet payroll and if additional capital funding is not provided, GAO and Amtrak have testified that the company will not survive past mid-1998. The key to Amtrak's future is both a legislative reform package and a secure source of capital funding. Given the immediate financial crisis Amtrak is facing, Congress cannot wait a moment longer. To be viable Amtrak will need both a secure source of capital funding and a reauthorization and reform bill this year. It is my goal to see both bills enacted this year. I do not doubt Senator McCain's ability to get the reform bill passed in the Senate and enacted this year. And, as I have stated on the floor many times, it is one of my priorities to give Amtrak a secure source of capital funding this year. Both bills are essential and I believe both should be implemented in conjunction with each other. We cannot lose our national passenger rail system. If something is not done to give Amtrak the capital funds and the reforms it needs, Amtrak will not survive. This is not an idle threat. GAO has testified before my committee that this is the case. Amtrak President Tom Downs has testified that the company would not survive past 1998. Amtrak's financial report proves it. The question before us is whether or not we want this country to have a national passenger rail system. If we want a national system, we must give Amtrak a secure capital funding source to allow it to operate more like a business. Let me take a few minutes to explain why I fought to include the Amtrak reserve fund in the budget resolution. And may I also say at this time that Senators Domenici and Lautenburg have been extremely helpful in securing this compromise language for me. Senator Domenici and I have worked together to develop a compromise on how to finance a secure source of funding for Amtrak. Out of these discussions we developed an Amtrak reserve fund which would allow for the spending caps for Amtrak to be raised by the amount of revenue raised to finance this fund. It is the first step, and a very critical step, for ensuring that Amtrak receives the capital funding it needs to survive. Mr. President, all major modes of transportation have a dedicated source of capital funding, except for intercity passenger rail. Amtrak needs a similar capital funding source to bring its equipment, facilities, and tracks into a state of good repair. Much of Amtrak's equipment and infrastructure has exceeded its projected useful life. The costs of maintaining this aging fleet and the need to modernize and overhaul facilities through capital improvements to the system are serious financial challenges for Amtrak. This provision is the first step in helping to reverse these problems and give Amtrak the resources necessary to meet its capital investment needs. I believe that it is time for Congress to reverse our current policy that favors building more highways at the expense of alternative means of transportation, such as intercity passenger rail. Despite rail's proven safety, efficiency, and reliability in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere, intercity passenger rail remains severely underfunded in the United States. In fact, over half of the Department of Transportation's spending authority is devoted to highways and another quarter to aviation; rail still ranks last with roughly 3 percent of total spending authority. If this Congress wants a national passenger rail system, we will have to properly fund the system. Amtrak has not been able to make sufficient capital investments in the past through annual, but inadequate appropriation. I am pleased that the Senate now recognizes that a new funding mechanism is needed for Amtrak. Under this budget agreement, Amtrak would finally receive similar treatment as other modes of transportation.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased that this budget agreement includes my proposal to give Amtrak a capital fund. My proposal creates an Amtrak reserve fund which would give Amtrak the capital funds that it needs to survive. Amtrak is currently borrowing to meet payroll and if additional capital funding is not provided, Amtrak President Tom Downs, has testified that the company will not survive beyond mid-1998. Let me be clear. This reserve fund is not my first preference. Amtrak today needs funding that I would prefer to do through direct spending. However, this reserve fund language is a compromise with the chairman of the Budget Committee to ensure that the Appropriations Committee will continue to have complete control over the funding of Amtrak. Our compromise language would allow spending caps for passenger rail to be raised by the amount of revenue raised in the Senate Finance Committee. It is the first step, and a very critical step, for ensuring that Amtrak would be able to receive the capital funds, subject to the appropriations process, it needs to survive. This provision does not create a trust fund nor ensure the creation of a trust fund for Amtrak. It is merely a placemark in the budget which provides that should money be raised for Amtrak, the spending caps would be raised by that amount. Three more steps are required if Amtrak is to see a capital fund: First, legislation must be enacted to create a fund; second, legislation must be enacted which pays for the fund; and finally, once all these steps have been accomplished, the appropriators must act to fund Amtrak. Let me reiterate, that the fate of Amtrak will continue to be in the appropriators' hands. Again, this is the first significant step to allow for a creation of a fund for Amtrak this year. This provision is necessary so that the creation of such a fund would not be in violation of the Budget Act. It merely creates room in the budget to allow spending from the rail fund, provided money is raised to finance this fund. Let me also say that this provision does not in any way put funding ahead of legislative reforms for Amtrak. Many Senators supporting this provision also support legislative reforms. I believe Amtrak must be able to operate like a business. Amtrak needs these reforms and they must be enacted this year. Senator Hutchison has recently introduced a major reform package which I generally support. I believe any additional capital funding must be done in conjunction with this reform package. This Amtrak reserve fund would not prevent this from happening. Again, the provision we are debating today merely says that should a trust fund be created and funded, there would be room in the budget. Also, this provision does not rely on the transfer of a half-cent from the 4.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax. It has nothing to do with the 4.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax. This reserve fund would be financed without such a transfer. My goal, however, would be that total capital funding for Amtrak would equal the revenues derived from a half-cent. Mr. President, we cannot lose our national passenger rail system. If something is not done to give Amtrak the capital funds it needs, Amtrak will not survive. This is not an idle threat. GAO has testified before my committee that this is the case. Amtrak President Tom Downs has testified that the company would not survive past 1998. Amtrak's financial report proves it. The question before us is whether or not we want this country to have a national passenger rail system. If we want a national system, we must give Amtrak a secure capital funding source. This provision is the first step in creating such a fund. Mr. President, all major modes of transportation have a dedicated source of capital funding, except for intercity passenger rail. Amtrak needs a similar capital funding source to bring it's equipment, facilities and tracks into a state of good repair. Much of Amtrak's equipment and infrastructure has exceeded its projected useful life. The costs of maintaining this aging fleet and the need to modernize and overhaul facilities through capital improvements to the system are serious financial challenges for Amtrak. This provision is the first step in helping to reverse these problems and give Amtrak the resources necessary to meet its capital investment needs. Mr. President, GAO, Amtrak, and the National Commission on Intermodal Transportation have called for a secure source of capital funding for Amtrak. I believe that now is the time for this Congress to reverse our current policy that favors building more highways at the expense of alternative means of transportation such as intercity passenger rail. Despite rail's proven safety, efficiency, and reliability in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere, intercity passenger rail remains severely underfunded in the United States. In fact, over half of the Department of Transportation's spending authority is devoted to highways and another quarter to aviation; rail still ranks last with roughly 3 percent of total spending authority. Last year we spent $20 billion for highways while capital investment for Amtrak was less than $450 million. In relative terms, between fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1994, transportation outlays for highways increased 73 percent, aviation increased 170 percent, and transportation outlays for rail went down by 62 percent. In terms of growth, between 1982 and 1992 highway spending grew by 5 percent, aviation by 10 percent, while rail decreased by 9 percent. A problem that is going to increase is the congestion on our roads. Between 1983 and 1990, vehicle miles traveled increased nationwide by 41 percent. If current trends continue, delays due to congestion will increase by more than 400 percent on our highways and by more than 1,000 percent on urban roads. Highway congestion costs the United States $100 billion annually, and this figure does not include the economic and societal costs of increased pollution and wasted energy resources. Air travel is equally congested. Commercial airlines in the United States presently transport over 450 million passengers each year. A recent transportation safety board study revealed that 21 of the 26 major airports experienced serious delays and it is projected to get worse. Again, the costs are enormous. A 1990 DOT study estimated the financial cost of air congestion at $5 billion each year, and it expects this number to reach $8 billion by 2000. Congestion is a problem and it must be addressed. However, the current path we are on directs more money for highways and airports. For us in the Northeast, building more roads is simply not an option. We do not have the land nor the financial resources to build more highways or more airports. For these reasons, we must provide more than just good roads but a good passenger rail system as well. Adequately funded passenger rail can successfully address highway gridlock and ease airport congestion. Passenger rail ridership between New York and Washington is equal to 7,500 fully booked 757's or 10,000 DC-9's. Between New York and Washington, Amtrak has over 40 percent of the air-rail market. Improved Northeast rail service will also have the same positive impact on road congestion. The 5.9 billion passenger miles were taken on Amtrak in 1994. These are trips that were not taken on crowded highways and airways. Improved rail service in the Northeast is projected to eliminate over 300,000 auto trips each year from highways as well as reduce auto congestion around the airports. Improved rail service will also have a positive effect on rural areas. Twenty-two million of Amtrak's 55 million passengers depend on Amtrak for travel between urban centers and rural locations which have no alternative modes of transportation. Mr. President, now is the time to invest in our rail system. Opponents of this language say that we should stop subsidizing Amtrak. Amtrak needs to be self-sufficient. I would like to see that happen, but to date, I am not aware of any transportation system that supports itself without Federal assistance. Further, I am not aware of any transportation system that supports itself through user fees. According to the Department of Transportation, in fiscal year 1994 nearly $6 billion more was spent on highways than was collected in user fees. In fiscal year 1995 nearly $8 billion more was spent on highways than was collected in taxes. Transit which is exempted from the motor fuels tax, received $3 billion in revenues in motor fuels revenues last year. I repeat, no mode is self-financed. If we want a national passenger rail system, we must fund it properly. This provision is an important step to give Amtrak the capital funds it needs to survive.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, of the 71 million children in our country some 86 percent have health coverage provided by private insurance or Medicaid. This is an impressive statistic. But it masks a problem. There are some 3.2 million children in families whose incomes are too high to qualify for Medicaid and too low to afford private insurance. This is a problem that ought to be fixed. No child should be without health care because his family can't afford to purchase coverage. The basic task we face in fixing this problem is to provide health insurance to these currently uninsured children without jeopardizing the private insurance system that provides care to the rest of our children. The Finance Committee has the responsibility of deciding how to do this. As chairman of that committee I intend to report legislation that will address this problem. The issue before us is how much money to dedicate to this activity. The budget agreement allocates some $16 billion to solve this problem. President Clinton supports this amount. The House of Representatives supports this amount. I believe this is the right place to start. This budget agreement before us is a delicate compromise of many competing interests. I think it would be unwise for us to jeopardize this agreement by asking for more.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to clarify the meaning of the term, ``most-favored-nation trading status.'' I do so because the term gives the false impression that MFN is some sort of special privilege or reward. In fact, MFN is not a special privilege or reward. It designates the most ordinary, most normal trading relationship among countries. Since the founding of our Republic, the principle of nondiscrimination embodied in MFN has served as the cornerstone of U.S. international trade policy. In its most basic trade application, this principle requires a country to apply the same tariff duty rate on a particular product from one country as it applies to imports of the same product from all other countries. For example, if the U.S. tariff on imported clock radios is 5 percent, all clock radios imported from countries with MFN status are subject to a 5-percent tariff. Imports from countries that do not have MFN status--and there are only six countries that fall into this category--are subject to far higher duty rates. Another important point about MFN is that it is not a one-way street. When we give MFN status to a particular country, that country, in return, gives the United States most-favored-nation status. Therefore, because we give Singapore MFN status, the clock radios we import from that country are subject to the same tariff rates as clock radios from Thailand, Spain, or any other country to which we extend MFN. In return, when Singapore imports our computer chips, it imposes the same tariff on United States chips as those imported from Japan, Korea, Great Britain, or any other country to which it extends MFN. What does the United States get out of all this? American companies get to compete on fair and equal terms with their foreign rivals. Let me emphasize again: MFN status does not confer--let alone imply-- special treatment. In fact, when we decide to give special treatment to imports from other countries--as Congress has expressly chosen to do for certain products from over 130 nations--those imports are subject to tariff rates substantially below the MFN rate. Sometimes we even allow specified countries to export products to the United States duty free. In short, MFN status denotes the standard, not the exceptional, trading relationship. Ending this standard trading relationship by revoking MFN is an extreme measure. In fact, because MFN is so fundamental to trade relations among countries, some correctly liken its withdrawal to a declaration of economic war. Because of the confusion created by the phrase, ``most-favored-nation trading status,'' Senator Moynihan and I and virtually all the Members of the Finance Committee have agreed to introduce legislation to replace the phrase wherever appropriate in U.S. trade law with a more suitable term--``normal trade relations''--a term that underscores the unexceptional nature of the MFN concept. I believe that if we adopt this legislation, we will all better understand the issue, and our discussions on extending normal trade relations to various countries will be more constructive. It should be clear to our trading partners that creating this new term will not alter our international rights and obligations. Rather, in choosing the term ``normal trade relations'' we aim to describe more accurately the nondiscriminatory principles underlying U.S. trade law and policy. Last year, similar legislation passed the Senate unanimously. I ask my colleagues to do the same again this year.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to clarify the meaning of the term, ``most-favored-nation trading status.'' I do so because the term gives the false impression that MFN is some sort of special privilege or reward. In fact, MFN is not a special privilege or reward. It designates the most ordinary, most normal trading relationship among countries. Since the founding of our Republic, the principle of nondiscrimination embodied in MFN has served as the cornerstone of U.S. international trade policy. In its most basic trade application, this principle requires a country to apply the same tariff duty rate on a particular product from one country as it applies to imports of the same product from all other countries. For example, if the U.S. tariff on imported clock radios is 5 percent, all clock radios imported from countries with MFN status are subject to a 5-percent tariff. Imports from countries that do not have MFN status--and there are only six countries that fall into this category--are subject to far higher duty rates. Another important point about MFN is that it is not a one-way street. When we give MFN status to a particular country, that country, in return, gives the United States most-favored-nation status. Therefore, because we give Singapore MFN status, the clock radios we import from that country are subject to the same tariff rates as clock radios from Thailand, Spain, or any other country to which we extend MFN. In return, when Singapore imports our computer chips, it imposes the same tariff on United States chips as those imported from Japan, Korea, Great Britain, or any other country to which it extends MFN. What does the United States get out of all this? American companies get to compete on fair and equal terms with their foreign rivals. Let me emphasize again: MFN status does not confer--let alone imply-- special treatment. In fact, when we decide to give special treatment to imports from other countries--as Congress has expressly chosen to do for certain products from over 130 nations--those imports are subject to tariff rates substantially below the MFN rate. Sometimes we even allow specified countries to export products to the United States duty free. In short, MFN status denotes the standard, not the exceptional, trading relationship. Ending this standard trading relationship by revoking MFN is an extreme measure. In fact, because MFN is so fundamental to trade relations among countries, some correctly liken its withdrawal to a declaration of economic war. Because of the confusion created by the phrase, ``most-favored-nation trading status,'' Senator Moynihan and I and virtually all the Members of the Finance Committee have agreed to introduce legislation to replace the phrase wherever appropriate in U.S. trade law with a more suitable term--``normal trade relations''--a term that underscores the unexceptional nature of the MFN concept. I believe that if we adopt this legislation, we will all better understand the issue, and our discussions on extending normal trade relations to various countries will be more constructive. It should be clear to our trading partners that creating this new term will not alter our international rights and obligations. Rather, in choosing the term ``normal trade relations'' we aim to describe more accurately the nondiscriminatory principles underlying U.S. trade law and policy. Last year, similar legislation passed the Senate unanimously. I ask my colleagues to do the same again this year.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, yesterday, the Medicare and Social Security trustees released their annual reports on the actuarial status of both trust funds--a report which is actually due on April 1 of each year. The board of trustees has six members: the Secretaries of Treasury and Labor; the Commissioner of Social Security, and two public trustees appointed by the President. As expected, there are no surprises in yesterday's reports, and there is no good news. As most Americans know by now, the Medicare hospital insurance [HI] trust fund is close to bankruptcy. In fact, the trustees' report confirms that the expected bankruptcy date remains just 4 years away-- in 2001. The problem is pretty basic--more money is flowing out of the HI trust fund than is flowing in. Trust fund assets are quickly being depleted. In 2001, they're gone. Although most attention is focused on the impending bankruptcy of the HI trust fund, the trustees report that the supplemental medical insurance [SMI] trust fund (Medicare part B) is also a serious problem. SMI spending is a blank check on the Treasury. Over the past 5 years, SMI spending has grown 14 percent faster than the economy. Without savings in part B, we cannot say we have affectively tackled the problem of fixing Medicare. In the words of the public trustees, part B growth is unsustainable over time. In bringing about a lasting solution that will protect and preserve the Medicare Program, all the Medicare stakeholders will have a role to play--hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, beneficiaries, and others. The public trustees appointed to represent the public expressed this challenge. They stated that, ``Medicare cannot stay exactly as it is and it is misleading to think that any part of the program--beneficiary premiums, providers payments, controls on utilization, covered service or revenues--can be exempt from change.'' I agree with the trustees' recommendation that a bipartisan advisory group should be put together to craft a long-term solution to Medicare's fiscal crisis. In fact, in February, with Senator Pat Moynihan, I introduced a bill to address Medicare long-term challenges by establishing a national bipartisan commission on the future of Medicare. This Medicare commission would serve as an essential catalyst to congressional action, consolidating bipartisan support, and ultimately lead to a solution that will preserve and protect the Medicare Program for current beneficiaries, their children, and grandchildren. Although the financial plight of the Medicare Program is urgent, we must also be mindful of the longer term--but no less serious--problems of Social Security. Beginning about 2012, payroll taxes will no longer cover benefits. We must surely act sooner than later if we are to avoid a crisis in Social Security. We need to assure the trust in the trust funds remains, not just for today's beneficiaries, but also for tomorrow's. We must ensure that Medicare and Social Security will be there for our children and grandchildren. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following joint statement by the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, and myself, be inserted in the Record at this point, along with the text of a bill we are introducing today.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following joint statement by the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, and myself, be inserted in the Record at this point, along with the text of a bill we are introducing today.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, Today, I am proud to join the Republican pension task force chaired by Senator Gregg to introduce the Women's Investment and Savings Equity Act of 1997, known as the Wise bill. I want to commend Senator Gregg for his leadership of the Republican pension task force and his hard work in putting this bill together. Of the 63 million baby boomers in America, a full 32 million of them are saving less than one-third of what they will need for retirement. This concerns me. It concerns me even further that the overwhelming majority of these Americans, unprepared for retirement, are women. According to the Census Bureau, retired women are almost twice as likely as men to live in poverty. The poverty rate for elderly single women is about four times greater than the rate for those who are married. I consider the Wise bill one of the beginning steps toward creating an environment where Americans can work for self-reliance and a secure future. It will go a long way toward establishing equity in the Tax Code for stay-at-home parents who want to save for their retirement years. And while it's called the women's investment and savings equity bill--because the majority of those who will benefit are women--it covers both mothers and fathers, whichever serves as homemaker. The Wise bill of 1997 will allow homemakers and other workers without a pension plan to make a full $2,000 tax-deductible IRA contribution each year, regardless of their spouse's pension plan. In addition, parents who take maternity or paternity leave will be allowed to make catch-up payments to their retirement plans after they return to work. Even homemakers who return to employment after an extended absence, and working parents who cannot afford pension contributions while raising children, will be able to catch-up for the years they were raising children. This bill is an important first step of a larger retirement savings and security expansion bill by the Republican pension task force. It will give families the tools for a secure retirement.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, students of history may remember Henry Stimson. He served America as Secretary of War and Secretary of State in the first half of the 20th century. While in office, Stimson tried to close down American counterintelligence sources. His reason, you may recall, was that ``gentlemen do not read each other's mail.'' Today, Mr. President, Henry Stimson would not only be concerned about counterintelligence operations but about the Internal Revenue Service as well. Recent reports disclose that among the abuses and misuses of power and access at the IRS is the ability of IRS employees to snoop in the files of unwitting taxpayers. While it's not the mail that these snoops are reading, it is something just as sensitive. I don't know of anyone who wants his or her detailed financial information perused without reason. The millions of Americans who comply with the law and file tax returns each year, should be able to do so without fear or hesitation that someone--for purposes of curiosity, revenge, or even a more avaricious motive--is snooping through their private information. If Government has one responsibility to these men and women it certainly must be to ensure their privacy. Current law does prohibit the disclosure of confidential taxpayer information. However, the Internal Revenue Code does not specifically prohibit IRS employees from unauthorized inspection or snooping of confidential taxpayer information. I can think of no better day to call for change that today, April 15, when once again those millions of trusting Americans are rushing their returns off to the IRS. You may remember, Mr. President, that last year, Congress amended title 18 of the United States Code to make it a crime to use a computer to snoop information of any Federal department or agency, including the IRS. However, last year's legislation did not apply to unauthorized inspection of paper documents. The bill we introduce today will correct that. It will require that tax return information be kept confidential by the IRS and it's employees. It will ensure that IRS employees do not snoop confidential taxpayer information. This bill will create a criminal penalty in the Internal Revenue Code of up to 1 year in prison and/or a fine of up to $1,000, plus the cost of prosecution for unauthorized willful browsing of confidential taxpayer information. The bill will also require the abusing employee to be fired. The bill will allow civil damages for snooping, and, if an IRS employee is indicted for unlawful inspection or disclosure of a taxpayer's confidential information, the bill will require that the IRS notify the taxpayer. Mr. President, this bill will provide additional protections and some peace of mind for taxpayers. I want to thank Senator Coverdell and Senator Glenn for their efforts to protect taxpayers by making it a crime for IRS employees to snoop taxpayer data.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I read recently that ``the best thing we have learned from nearly five hundred years of contact with the American wilderness is restraint,'' the need to stay our hand and preserve our precious environment and future resources rather than destroy them for momentary gain. With this in mind, Ioffer legislation today that designates the coastal plain of Alaska as wilderness area. At the moment this area is a national wildlife refuge--one of our beautiful and last frontiers. By changing its designation, Mr. President, we can protect it forever. And I can't stress how important this is. The Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our Earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a vital part of our national consciousness. It is a place we can cherish and visit for our soul's good. It offers us a sense of well-being and promises that not all dreams have been dreamt. The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and glaciers, gentle foothills and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich with caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep, moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans, black brant, and more. In all, about 165 species use the coastal plain. It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give birth, nurse and feed their young, and set about the critical business of fueling up for winters of unspeakable severity. The fact is, Mr. President, there are parts of this Earth where it is good that man can come only as a visitor. These are the pristine lands that belong to all of us. And perhaps most importantly, these are the lands that belong to our future. Considering the many reasons why this bill is so important, I came across the words of the great Western writer, Wallace Stegner. Referring to the land we are trying to protect with this legislation, he wrote that it is ``the most splendid part of the American habitat; it is also the most fragile.'' And we cannot enter ``it carrying habits that [are] inappropriate and expectations that [are] surely excessive.'' The expectations for oil exploration in this pristine region are excessive. There is only a 1-in-5 chance of finding any economically recoverable oil in the refuge. And if oil is found, the daily production of 400,000 barrels per day is less than 0.7 percent of world production--far too small to meet America's energy needs for more than a few months. In other words, Mr. President, there is much more to lose than might ever be gained by tearing this frontier apart. Already, some 90 percent of Alaska's entire North Slope is open to oil and gas leasing and development. Let's keep this area as the jewel amid the stones. What this bill offers--and what we need--is a brand of pragmatic environmentalism, an environmental stewardship that protects our important wilderness areas and precious resources, while carefully and judiciously weighing the short-term desires or our country against its long-term needs. Together, we need to embrace environmental policies that are workable and pragmatic, policies based on the desire to make the world a better place for us and for future generations. I believe a strong economy, liberty, and progress are possible only when we have a healthy planet-- only when resources are managed through wise stewardship--only when an environmental ethic thrives among nations--and only when people have frontiers that are untrammeled and able to host their fondest dreams.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I read recently that ``the best thing we have learned from nearly five hundred years of contact with the American wilderness is restraint,'' the need to stay our hand and preserve our precious environment and future resources rather than destroy them for momentary gain. With this in mind, Ioffer legislation today that designates the coastal plain of Alaska as wilderness area. At the moment this area is a national wildlife refuge--one of our beautiful and last frontiers. By changing its designation, Mr. President, we can protect it forever. And I can't stress how important this is. The Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our Earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a vital part of our national consciousness. It is a place we can cherish and visit for our soul's good. It offers us a sense of well-being and promises that not all dreams have been dreamt. The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and glaciers, gentle foothills and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich with caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep, moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans, black brant, and more. In all, about 165 species use the coastal plain. It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give birth, nurse and feed their young, and set about the critical business of fueling up for winters of unspeakable severity. The fact is, Mr. President, there are parts of this Earth where it is good that man can come only as a visitor. These are the pristine lands that belong to all of us. And perhaps most importantly, these are the lands that belong to our future. Considering the many reasons why this bill is so important, I came across the words of the great Western writer, Wallace Stegner. Referring to the land we are trying to protect with this legislation, he wrote that it is ``the most splendid part of the American habitat; it is also the most fragile.'' And we cannot enter ``it carrying habits that [are] inappropriate and expectations that [are] surely excessive.'' The expectations for oil exploration in this pristine region are excessive. There is only a 1-in-5 chance of finding any economically recoverable oil in the refuge. And if oil is found, the daily production of 400,000 barrels per day is less than 0.7 percent of world production--far too small to meet America's energy needs for more than a few months. In other words, Mr. President, there is much more to lose than might ever be gained by tearing this frontier apart. Already, some 90 percent of Alaska's entire North Slope is open to oil and gas leasing and development. Let's keep this area as the jewel amid the stones. What this bill offers--and what we need--is a brand of pragmatic environmentalism, an environmental stewardship that protects our important wilderness areas and precious resources, while carefully and judiciously weighing the short-term desires or our country against its long-term needs. Together, we need to embrace environmental policies that are workable and pragmatic, policies based on the desire to make the world a better place for us and for future generations. I believe a strong economy, liberty, and progress are possible only when we have a healthy planet-- only when resources are managed through wise stewardship--only when an environmental ethic thrives among nations--and only when people have frontiers that are untrammeled and able to host their fondest dreams.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of Senator Moynihan and myself to introduce a bill that would correct a technical error originally contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Specifically, the bill would correct the definition of the term ``Indian reservation'' under section 168(j)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. This definition of the term ``Indian reservation'' applies for purposes of determining the geographic areas within which businesses are eligible for special accelerated depreciation (sec. 168(j)) and the so-called Indian employment tax credit (sec. 45A) enacted in 1993. As I explain in further detail below, the bill corrects the definition of ``Indian reservation'' for purposes of these special tax incentives so that, as Congress originally intended, the incentives are available only to businesses that operate on Indian reservations and similar lands that continue to be held in trust for Indian tribes and their members. It is my intent to incorporate the provisions of this bill into a larger bill, which I plan to introduce later this session, containing technical corrections to other recently enacted tax legislation. Section 168(j)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that the term ``Indian reservation'' means a reservation as defined in either (a) section 3(d) of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(d)), or (b) section 4(10) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1903(10)). The cross-reference to section 3(d) of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 includes not only officially designated Indian reservations and public domain Indian allotments, but also all ``former Indian reservations in Oklahoma'' and all land held by incorporated Native groups, regional corporations, and village corporations under the provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Thus, contrary to Congress' intent in enacting the special tax incentives for Indian lands in 1993, the reference to ``former Indian reservations in Oklahoma'' in the Indian Financing Act of 1974 results in most of the State of Oklahoma being eligible for the special tax incentives, even though parts of such ``former Indian reservations'' no longer have a significant nexus to any Indian tribe. For instance, it is my understanding that the entire city of Tulsa may be located within a ``former Indian reservation,'' such that any business operating in Tulsa qualifies for accelerated depreciation under present-law section 168(j). Providing such a tax benefit to commercial activities with no nexus to a tribal community would frustrate Congress' intent to target special tax incentives to official reservations and similar lands that continue to be held in trust for Indians. Businesses located on official reservations and similar lands held in trust for Indians were provided special business tax incentives in order to counter the disadvantages historically associated with conducting commercial operations in such areas, which were expressly excluded from eligibility as empowerment zones or enterprise communities under the 1993 act legislation (see Internal Revenue Code sec. 1393(a)(4)). The bill I am introducing today would modify the definition of ``Indian reservation'' under section 168(j)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code by deleting the reference to section 3(d) of the Indian Financing Act of 1974. Consequently, the term ``Indian reservation'' would be defined under section 168(j)(6) solely by reference to section 4(10) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, which provides that the term ``reservation'' means ``Indian country as defined in section 1151 of Title 18 and any lands, not covered under [section 1151], title to which is either held by the United States in trust for the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual or held by an Indian tribe or individual subject to a restriction by the United States against alienation'' (25 U.S.C. 1903(10)). Section 1151 of Title 18, in turn, defines the term ``Indian country'' as meaning ``(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same'' (18 U.S.C. 1151). Accordingly, amending section 168(j)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code to define the term ``Indian reservation'' solely by reference to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 would carry out Congress' original intent in enacting the special Indian tax incentives in 1993 by eliminating from eligibility those areas in Oklahoma which formerly were reservations but no longer satisfy the definition of a ``reservation'' under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. It is my understanding that, even after amending section 168(j)(6) in this manner, numerous areas within Oklahoma will remain eligible for the special tax incentives because, even though such areas are not officially designated reservations, such areas nonetheless qualify as ``Indian country'' under section 1151 of Title 18. Similarly, it is my understanding that lands held by Native groups under the provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act also would qualify as ``Indian country" under section 1151 of Title 18. Thus, if section 168(j)(6) were amended to define ``Indian reservation'' solely by reference to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, lands held under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act would continue to be eligible for the special Indian tax incentives. In this regard, it is my intent that, if it is brought to the attention of the tax-writing committees that there are any Indian lands that technically do not fall within the definition of ``Indian reservation'' under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 but which could be made eligible for the special Indian tax incentives consistent with Congress' intent in 1993, then consideration will be given to further modifying the bill I am introducing today when it is incorporated into a larger technical corrections bill. The technical correction made by the bill would be effective as if it had been included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (that is, the technical correction would apply to property placed in service and wages paid on or after January 1, 1994). As a general matter, I oppose retroactive changes to the Internal Revenue Code. However, technical corrections to fix drafting errors in previously enacted tax legislation traditionally refer back to the original effective date to prevent taxpayers from receiving an unintended windfall. This bill corrects such a drafting error.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it is a personal honor for me to once again cosponsor Senate Resolution 56 designating March 25, 1997, as ``Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy''. This resolution honors the anniversary of a single, victorious revolution that occurred 176 years ago. This solitary battle returned to the citizens of Greece their freedom and democracy, rights that had been seized from them centuries before by the Ottoman Empire. Greece is a country possessing an immensely rich heritage, and one from which our own Nation has drawn generously and with great benefit. In times of peace and in times of conflict, Greece has steered a strong and steady course with the United States as a loyal friend and trusted ally. This resolution provides me with the opportunity to express our deep gratitude to the nation of Greece, as well as our own Greek American community, for the significant contributions they have both made on behalf of our Nation--and to the inexorable ties which bind our two peoples together.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, there's an old joke that might help us put the current activity surrounding campaign finance reform into some perspective. The joke concerns two men who hire a small plane to go hunting bear. The pilot, as he drops the hunters off, insists that the plane can only carry two passengers and one bear on its return trip. With that warning ringing in their ears, the hunters go off and eventually return with two bears. The pilot protests that the huge second animal will overload the plane. The hunters remind him that that was just what he told them last year. They reminded him that they had given him an extra $100 the year before, and that he had let them load both bears. ``So here's another $100,'' they say and then they pack both carcasses into the rear of the plane. The plane struggles down the runway and lifts uncertainly into the sky. It gets halfway home but then crashes in the forest. The hunters crawl from the wreckage and ask the bruised pilot, ``Where are we?'' The pilot looks around and replies, ``Same place we crashed last year.'' Today, the debris of scandal associated with campaign financing is strewn all about us. The White House is under siege as one news report after another brings new information about suspected improprieties. The Governmental Affairs Committee has now been asked to probe into the illegal and improper financial practices that may have taken place in this last election. What I want to remind my colleagues is that this is not the first time we have addressed this issue. In fact, this is, as Yogi Berra would say, deja vu all over again. More than two decades ago, Congress passed legislation on campaign finance reform. That legislation included limits on all contributions and on candidate expenditures. It placed limits on independent expenditures, required disclosure, and set limits on the amount of personal wealth a candidate could spend on his campaign. This was done, Mr. President, in 1974. Following that legislation, however, the Supreme Court stepped in and decimated the reforms with its decision in Buckley versus Valeo. While the courts upheld limits on campaign contributions, it struck down the limits on independent expenditures and on the use of personal wealth. This, in effect, increased the disparity between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy in campaigns. It also increased the power and impact of independent expenditures, much of which focuses on negative advertising. Each of these serious consequences of the Supreme Court's decision created conditions that were exactly opposite of what Congress had intended. For example concerning independent expenditures, this means that person or group has unlimited ability to spend money for or against any candidate, as long as they do not coordinate their efforts with the candidates. Because of the Supreme Court's decision, and the rising costs of political campaigns--costs that can be prohibitive and exclusionary--I remained active in trying to find a remedy, a remedy that would result in the kind of real reform that Congress had intended. Because of Buckley versus Valeo, it was clear that such reform could not be achieved by statute, but that it required a constitutional amendment. In four consecutive Congresses, Senator Hollings and I introduced constitutional amendments that would achieve Congress' goal of complete reform. In this Congress, Senator Hollings has reintroduced his constitutional amendment, and once again I intend to support it. I intend to support it because anything short of an amendment will fail to achieve the conditions necessary for real reform. Statutory reforms without a constitutional amendment will create even greater problems as political money will flow elsewhere to get around the statutory limitations. In other words, as restrictions are placed on certain channels, money will find its way into other channels--it will flow through independent expenditures and unlimited personal contributions, which are protected by the Supreme Court's decisions. Needless to say, this would further damage the ability of a sharp, qualified candidate to win office if he or she did not have the kind of money that a wealthy candidate--a candidate who may even come from out of State--can bring into a race. Small States like Delaware would be extremely vulnerable to the inequities created by these restrictions. For over two decades now, reformers in Congress have been seeking to overturn Supreme Court decisions by simple statute even though the decisions were based on the first amendment. That effort is a waste of time for anyone seeking comprehensive reform. Of course, if one's goal is to incapacitate all candidates who are not wealthy and to allow the wealthy and the special interests to determine the outcomes of elections, then perhaps such statutory reforms will do. But if one's goal is to level the playing field, then the solution must effectively address all the players and not only the candidates. So unlike some of my colleagues who support the pending constitutional amendment, I cannot support statutory proposals whose effect would be to weaken the role of candidates and to strengthen the role of those whose spending is constitutionally protected. No statute can limit what the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, protects. The Constitution gives us, in these circumstances, a simple choice: we can overturn the Supreme Court so that we can reenact the 1974 campaign finance law or we can live under the Supreme Court decision, powerless to enact comprehensive reform. I am glad to see that this basic constitutional fact of life has now been embraced by the minority leaders in both Houses. But we need more support than theirs to achieve the supermajority in both Houses required to propose ratification. And that will happen when those organizations espousing reform stop blocking the only path to real reform. Last week on the floor, opponents of the pending constitutional amendment argued that adoption of the proposal would allow Congress to do all sorts of unreasonable things, such as outlawing all campaign expenditures so that incumbents would be reelected. It may be helpful to recall that 10 years ago the Hollings proposal did not include the important word ``reasonable'' modifying the limits Congress could impose on campaign expenditures. At that time, I argued that adding the word ``reasonable'' would make clear that judicial review of congressional limits was intended. Opponents seem to suggest that the pending proposal would give Congress unlimited discretion. That's not true. Courts now under the fourth amendment review what is ``unreasonable'' search and seizure. Under the pending proposal, courts would review what is or is not a ``reasonable'' limit on campaign expenditures. Opponents also raised the question whether the proposal would authorize Congress to limit editorials. I must say that I never viewed editorials as campaign expenditures, and I believe that most people have the same view. If that point needed further clarification, I would think legislative history could make clear that editorial coverage is not intended to be included within the pending proposal. Mr. President, campaign finance reform must be fair. A constitutional amendment will allow us to make it fair. Campaign finance reform must also look at making races less expensive and more accessible to fine candidates who are deterred from running because of money. Campaigns can be made less expensive by shortening the campaign season, and by requiring television stations to grant free advertising time as a condition of their Federal licenses. It's no secret that the major expense in the electoral process is buying media time. I have long been an advocate of free TV for campaigns--going back to the 1970's--and I have introduced legislation toward this end. In 1993, I wrote to President Clinton seeking his support, and I'm now delighted to see that he has suggested requiring broadcasters to provide free time for candidates in exchange for new licenses to provide high-definition television. This will be no easy feat. When I first broached this idea, I could only find three Senators who would support me. One was Majority Leader Mike Mansfield. That was many years ago, and I must admit we have seen some progress. The last time I brought this legislation to the floor, a few years ago, I received six votes. But perhaps, in light of the scandal plaguing the White House, as well as the outcry from our constituents, this is an idea whose time has come. I have talked to my constituents, Mr. President. I know their feelings on campaign finance reform. They want reasonable limitations on campaign expenditures. They want reasonable limits placed on independent expenditures. And they want shorter campaigns. It is my sincere hope that as we move forward in this important debate, we will achieve these three very basic objectives, and, unlike our bear hunters, we will not, in the years to come, find ourselves in the same situation we are in now.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would create a dedicated source of capital funding for Amtrak. Joining me as cosponsors are Senators Moynihan, Lautenberg, Wyden, Jeffords, Biden, Kerry, DeWine, Leahy, and Specter. Mr. President, all major modes of transportation have a dedicated source of capital funding, except for intercity passenger rail. My legislation would correct this inequity and create a secure and reliable capital trust fund for Amtrak, no different than what other major modes of transportation now have. My legislation would transfer one-half cent of the 4.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax currently going to the general fund, to a new intercity passenger rail trust fund. This rail trust fund would total approximately $3.9 billion dollars over 5 years to be used for capital improvement projects. After the fifth year, the revenues from the half cent would revert back to the general fund. My bill would create contract authority to allow Amtrak to enter into contracts necessary for long-term capital projects. For States that do not have Amtrak service, it would provide funding for qualified transportation expenses. This capital funding proposal is critical to Amtrak's future. Amtrak needs capital funding to bring it's equipment, facilities, and tracks into a state of good repair. Much of Amtrak's equipment and infrastructure has exceeded its projected useful life. The costs of maintaining this aging fleet and the need to modernize and overhaul facilities through capital improvements to the system are serious financial challenges for Amtrak. My proposal would help reverse these problems and give Amtrak the resources necessary to meet its capital investment needs. Mr. President, Amtrak, and the National Commission on Intermodal Transportation have called for a secure source of capital funding for Amtrak. I believe that now is the time for this Congress to reverse our current policy that favors building more highways at the expense of alternative means of transportation such as intercity passenger rail. Despite rail's proven safety, efficiency, and reliability in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere, inter-city passenger rail remains severely underfunded in the United States. In fact, over half of the Department of Transportation's spending authority is devoted to highways and another quarter to aviation; rail still ranks last with roughly 3 percent of total spending authority. Last year we spent $20 billion for highways while capital investment for Amtrak was less than $450 million. In relative terms, between fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1994, transportation outlays for highways increased 73 percent, aviation increased 170 percent, and transportation outlays for rail went down by 62 percent. In terms of growth, between 1982 and 1992 highway spending grew by 5 percent, aviation by 10 percent, while rail decreased by 9 percent. A problem that is going to increase is the congestion on our roads. Between 1983 and 1990, Vehicle Miles Traveled increased nationwide by 41 percent. If current trends continue, delays due to congestion will increase by more than 400 percent on our highways and by more than 1000 percent on urban roads. Highway congestion costs the United States $100 billion annually, and this figure does not include the economic and societal costs of increased pollution and wasted energy resources. Air travel is equally congested. Commercial airlines in the U.S. presently transport over 450 million passengers each year. A recent transportation safety board study revealed that 21 of the 26 major airports experienced serious delays and it is projected to get worse. Again, the costs are enormous. A 1990 DOT study estimated the financial cost of air congestion at $5 billion each year, and it expects this number to reach $8 billion by 2000. Congestion is a problem and it must be addressed. However, the current path we are on directs more money for highways and airports. For us in the Northeast, building more roads is simply not an option. We do not have the land nor the financial resources to build more highways or more airports. For these reasons, we must provide more than just good roads but a good passenger rail system as well. Adequately funded passenger rail can successfully address highway gridlock and ease airport congestion. Passenger rail ridership between New York and Washington is equal to 7,500 fully booked 757's or 10,000 DC-9's. Between New York and Washington, Amtrak has over 40 percent of the air-rail market. Improved Northeast rail service will also have the same positive impact on road congestion--5.9 billion passenger miles were taken on Amtrak in 1994. These are trips that were not taken on crowded highways and airways. Improved rail service in the Northeast is projected to eliminate over 300,000 auto trips each year from highways as well as reduce auto congestion around the airports. Improved rail service will also have a positive affect on rural areas. Twenty-two of Amtrak's 55 million passengers depend on Amtrak for travel between urban centers and rural locations which have no alternative modes of transportation. Mr. President, now is the time to invest in our rail system. Opponents of my legislation have said that we should not use revenues from our motor fuels tax to pay for Amtrak. I disagree. States are currently using revenues collected from our motor fuels tax for many non-highway uses. For example, Virginia uses its motor fuels tax receipts on mass transit and ports; New Hampshire uses its motor fuels receipts to bolster their Fish and Game Department; Wyoming uses its portion of the motor fuels tax for snowmobile trails and boating facilities; Florida and Arkansas use the motor fuels tax for environmental protection. Like these States have already done, I believe Congress should spend the revenues raised by the motor fuels tax on those programs it feels best serve our transportation needs. I think passenger rail should be one of those programs. Another argument I often hear is that we should stop subsidizing Amtrak. Amtrak needs to be self-sufficient. I would like to see that happen, but to date, I am not aware of any transportation system that supports itself without Federal assistance. Further, I am not aware of any transportation system that supports itself through user fees. According to the Department of Transportation, in fiscal year 1994 nearly $6 billion more was spent on highways than was collected in user fees. In fiscal year 1995 nearly $8 billion more was spent on highways than was collected in user fees. Transit which is exempt from the motor fuels tax, received $3 billion in revenues in motor fuels revenues last year. I repeat, no mode is self-financed. In closing, our national passenger rail system is important. My legislation would provide capital funding to help improve and maintain the corporation's infrastructure. Amtrak will not be able to make it to zero operating subsidies by the year 2002 without it. If we are to adequately fund our passenger rail system like we fund our highways and other major modes of transportation, Amtrak will need this trust fund.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend, Senator Domenici, for allowing me to go next. I will limit my remarks to 5 minutes. (The remarks of Mr. Roth pertaining to the introduction of S. 436 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would create a dedicated source of capital funding for Amtrak. Joining me as cosponsors are Senators Moynihan, Lautenberg, Wyden, Jeffords, Biden, Kerry, DeWine, Leahy, and Specter. Mr. President, all major modes of transportation have a dedicated source of capital funding, except for intercity passenger rail. My legislation would correct this inequity and create a secure and reliable capital trust fund for Amtrak, no different than what other major modes of transportation now have. My legislation would transfer one-half cent of the 4.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax currently going to the general fund, to a new intercity passenger rail trust fund. This rail trust fund would total approximately $3.9 billion dollars over 5 years to be used for capital improvement projects. After the fifth year, the revenues from the half cent would revert back to the general fund. My bill would create contract authority to allow Amtrak to enter into contracts necessary for long-term capital projects. For States that do not have Amtrak service, it would provide funding for qualified transportation expenses. This capital funding proposal is critical to Amtrak's future. Amtrak needs capital funding to bring it's equipment, facilities, and tracks into a state of good repair. Much of Amtrak's equipment and infrastructure has exceeded its projected useful life. The costs of maintaining this aging fleet and the need to modernize and overhaul facilities through capital improvements to the system are serious financial challenges for Amtrak. My proposal would help reverse these problems and give Amtrak the resources necessary to meet its capital investment needs. Mr. President, Amtrak, and the National Commission on Intermodal Transportation have called for a secure source of capital funding for Amtrak. I believe that now is the time for this Congress to reverse our current policy that favors building more highways at the expense of alternative means of transportation such as intercity passenger rail. Despite rail's proven safety, efficiency, and reliability in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere, inter-city passenger rail remains severely underfunded in the United States. In fact, over half of the Department of Transportation's spending authority is devoted to highways and another quarter to aviation; rail still ranks last with roughly 3 percent of total spending authority. Last year we spent $20 billion for highways while capital investment for Amtrak was less than $450 million. In relative terms, between fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1994, transportation outlays for highways increased 73 percent, aviation increased 170 percent, and transportation outlays for rail went down by 62 percent. In terms of growth, between 1982 and 1992 highway spending grew by 5 percent, aviation by 10 percent, while rail decreased by 9 percent. A problem that is going to increase is the congestion on our roads. Between 1983 and 1990, Vehicle Miles Traveled increased nationwide by 41 percent. If current trends continue, delays due to congestion will increase by more than 400 percent on our highways and by more than 1000 percent on urban roads. Highway congestion costs the United States $100 billion annually, and this figure does not include the economic and societal costs of increased pollution and wasted energy resources. Air travel is equally congested. Commercial airlines in the U.S. presently transport over 450 million passengers each year. A recent transportation safety board study revealed that 21 of the 26 major airports experienced serious delays and it is projected to get worse. Again, the costs are enormous. A 1990 DOT study estimated the financial cost of air congestion at $5 billion each year, and it expects this number to reach $8 billion by 2000. Congestion is a problem and it must be addressed. However, the current path we are on directs more money for highways and airports. For us in the Northeast, building more roads is simply not an option. We do not have the land nor the financial resources to build more highways or more airports. For these reasons, we must provide more than just good roads but a good passenger rail system as well. Adequately funded passenger rail can successfully address highway gridlock and ease airport congestion. Passenger rail ridership between New York and Washington is equal to 7,500 fully booked 757's or 10,000 DC-9's. Between New York and Washington, Amtrak has over 40 percent of the air-rail market. Improved Northeast rail service will also have the same positive impact on road congestion--5.9 billion passenger miles were taken on Amtrak in 1994. These are trips that were not taken on crowded highways and airways. Improved rail service in the Northeast is projected to eliminate over 300,000 auto trips each year from highways as well as reduce auto congestion around the airports. Improved rail service will also have a positive affect on rural areas. Twenty-two of Amtrak's 55 million passengers depend on Amtrak for travel between urban centers and rural locations which have no alternative modes of transportation. Mr. President, now is the time to invest in our rail system. Opponents of my legislation have said that we should not use revenues from our motor fuels tax to pay for Amtrak. I disagree. States are currently using revenues collected from our motor fuels tax for many non-highway uses. For example, Virginia uses its motor fuels tax receipts on mass transit and ports; New Hampshire uses its motor fuels receipts to bolster their Fish and Game Department; Wyoming uses its portion of the motor fuels tax for snowmobile trails and boating facilities; Florida and Arkansas use the motor fuels tax for environmental protection. Like these States have already done, I believe Congress should spend the revenues raised by the motor fuels tax on those programs it feels best serve our transportation needs. I think passenger rail should be one of those programs. Another argument I often hear is that we should stop subsidizing Amtrak. Amtrak needs to be self-sufficient. I would like to see that happen, but to date, I am not aware of any transportation system that supports itself without Federal assistance. Further, I am not aware of any transportation system that supports itself through user fees. According to the Department of Transportation, in fiscal year 1994 nearly $6 billion more was spent on highways than was collected in user fees. In fiscal year 1995 nearly $8 billion more was spent on highways than was collected in user fees. Transit which is exempt from the motor fuels tax, received $3 billion in revenues in motor fuels revenues last year. I repeat, no mode is self-financed. In closing, our national passenger rail system is important. My legislation would provide capital funding to help improve and maintain the corporation's infrastructure. Amtrak will not be able to make it to zero operating subsidies by the year 2002 without it. If we are to adequately fund our passenger rail system like we fund our highways and other major modes of transportation, Amtrak will need this trust fund.

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, today my good friend, Senator Moynihan, and I are introducing a landmark piece of legislation to create a cost-of- living board that will improve our Government's ability to index Federal programs with a more accurate measurement of inflation. Clearly, there are a number of ways to address the accurate measure of inflation with regard to our indexed Federal tax and benefit programs. In my view, this bill represents one possible way to achieve greater accuracy. It is not the only way, but I believe it is our best effort to create a mechanism to fairly compensate taxpayers and benefit recipients alike. One of the most significant issues that faces Congress this year is the accuracy of the Consumer Price Index, and I believe that Congress and the President need to seriously address the economic ramifications of an inaccurate measure of the cost of living. The five-member board created in our bill will meet throughout the year to, first, review the statistical evidence about inflation produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and others, and after careful review of all the evidence regarding inflation, the board will then produce a cost-of-living adjustment by a majority vote of the members of the commission not later than November 1 of each year. This inflation adjustment number will serve as a number for which all Federal benefit programs and tax items will be indexed for the coming year without further action by the Congress or the President. If, however, the cost-of-living board fails by a majority vote to produce a cost-of-living adjustment, then current law applies. That is to say, that the BLS-produced CPI will be used to index tax and benefit programs. Let me be clear. This cost-of-living board will not--and I emphasize not--study the accuracy of the Consumer Price Index. We have already had the Boskin commission which did just that. The report was widely praised within the Economic Community, including many highly respected economists, such as Dr. Alan Greenspan and Dr. Martin Feldstein. One of the roles in Government is to protect American families from inflation. In doing so, it is important that we are able to measure inflation as precisely as possible, and I view this board as our best hope of accurately measuring inflation. I cannot emphasize too greatly the importance of an accurate measurement of inflation. If the index is too high, it overcompensates retirees and others and undertaxes many taxpayers. If it is too low, it undercompensates retirees and overtaxes the taxpayer. What we want is fairness to all with as accurate an index as possible. I want to stress that any action we take on this issue must be broadly and deeply bipartisan. We must have the full cooperation and leadership by President Clinton. I hope the President will not miss an opportunity to consider this board as one possible option that will ``take the politics out of it'' and fulfill his goals set out in his State of the Union Address to ``do the right thing for the country.'' Clearly, this reform will not be successful without the President's leadership. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Let me start out by thanking the distinguished Senator from New York for his leadership in this critically important matter. I can say, fairly, that nothing would have happened if it had not been for his willingness to step out early on and take measures that I think are in the best interests of this Nation and the people of this great country.