William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to draw my colleagues' attention to an opinion piece by Senator Bob Dole entitled ``Medicare: Let's Fix It'' that was in last Sunday's Washington Post. It is my hope that all my Senate colleagues will read this compelling op-ed. Senator Dole has worked on and observed the Medicare Program for many years, and there is much wisdom to be gleaned from his commentary. He is right--we must address Medicare's problems with real solutions while giving seniors more choices. On a personal note, I want to thank my friend for his praise of legislation, S. 341, recently introduced by Senator Moynihan and myself, to establish a bipartisan commission on the long-term solvency problems in the Medicare Program. As Senator Dole notes, ``a bipartisan commission can recommend sound long-term solutions,'' as evidenced by the 1983 Social Security Commission. Mr. President, the proposed national bipartisan commission on the Future of Medicare would be this type of commission. Currently, the Medicare Program is not in the best of health--its short- and long-term fiscal problems make it increasingly vulnerable. In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected the Medicare trust fund is headed for the emergency room; it will go bankrupt in 2001 with a $4.5 billion shortfall. The trust fund is spending more than it is taking in from revenues; this trend will continue, creating a trust fund deficit of over one-half trillion dollars just 10 years from now. And that's still before the baby-boomers begin to retire in 2010. The prognosis is not good. The Medicare trust fund is limping--and soon will be staggering--into the 21st century. This national bipartisan commission is the medicine needed to restore Medicare's good health. Its recommendations will help the President and Congress build the consensus needed to enact effective policies to preserve and strengthen Medicare. Senator Dole is correct in stating, ``Creating a commission won't let--the President and Congress--off the hook to enact needed Medicare changes now to avoid bankruptcy in 2001.'' I believe the President and Congress must act immediately to extend the short-term solvency of the program. I am encouraged by President Clinton's willingness in his budget package to address the growth of Medicare spending over the next 5 years. However, I'm troubled by the administration's use of gimmicks like the home health transfer and an over reliance on cutting provider payments--such policies are just plastic surgery, masking deeper problems with a pretty face. Senator Dole says he has ``never seen a budget gimmick that solved a real public policy problem''--and neither have I. In the long-term, Medicare must fight another potentially crippling problem. Retiring baby boomers will challenge our ability to maintain our promises to beneficiaries. Today, there are less than 40 million Americans who qualify to receive Medicare. By the year 2010, the number will be approaching 50 million, and by 2020, it will be over 60 million. Today, there are almost four workers supporting each retiree, but in 2030, there will be only about two per retiree. The demographic progression of the Medicare population will not come as a surprise. We know today what is to be expected. To be healthy, the Medicare Program is in need of structural reform. Since Medicare's enactment in 1965, there has been a great deal of change in the private health care system in the United States--but Medicare remains fundamentally unchanged. Medicare is too rigid and unable to offer the improvements in delivery of care and technological advances that have been made in the private sector. Medicare is the Model T Ford of health care programs competing in a race car world. These are some of the problems the National Bipartisan Commission will address. I believe it will prove to be the intensive treatment needed to cure Medicare's growing symptoms. There is agreement over the diagnosis, but no consensus over the course of treatment. Meanwhile, Medicare's time runs short. It is my hope that by working together in a bipartisan effort, we can seriously and responsibly address the Medicare issue. Again, I hope my colleagues will read Senator Dole's essay, and consider the issues he raises. The answers to the Medicare problem are not easy and they are not politically popular. The consequences of delaying treatment are much worse, though. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I intend for future generations to inherit a robust Medicare Program with a clean bill of health. The Commission proposed by Senator Moynihan and myself is just what the doctor ordered. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Senator Dole's op-ed be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby submit for publication in the Record the rules of the Committee on Finance. The rules follow: Committee on Finance i. rules of procedure (Adopted January 28, 1997) Rule 1. Regular Meeting Days.--The regular meeting day of the committee shall be the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, except that if there be no business before the committee the regular meeting shall be omitted. Rule 2. Committee Meetings.--(a) Except as provided by paragraph 3 of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate (relating to special meetings called by a majority of the committee) and subsection (b) of this rule, committee meetings, for the conduct of business, for the purpose of holding hearings, or for any other purpose, shall be called by the chairman. Members will be notified of committee meetings at least 48 hours in advance, unless the chairman determines that an emergency situation requires a meeting on shorter notice. The notification will include a written agenda together with materials prepared by the staff relating to that agenda. After the agenda for a committee meeting is published and distributed, no nongermane items may be brought up during that meeting unless at least two-thirds of the members present agree to consider those items. (b) In the absence of the chairman, meetings of the committee may be called by the ranking majority member of the committee who is present, provided authority to call meetings has been delegated to such member by the chairman. Rule 3. Presiding Officer.--(a) The chairman shall preside at all meetings and hearings of the committee except that in his absence the ranking majority member who is present at the meeting shall preside. (b) Notwithstanding the rule prescribed by subsection (a) any member of the committee may preside over the conduct of a hearing. Rule 4. Quorums.--(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) one-third of the membership of the committee, including not less than one member of the majority party and one member of the minority party, shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of business. (b) Notwithstanding the rule prescribed by subsection (a), one member shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting a hearing. Rule 5. Reporting of Measures or Recommendations.--No measure or recommendation shall be reported from the committee unless a majority of the committee is actually present and a majority of those present concur. Rule 6. Proxy Voting; Polling.--(a) Except as provided by paragraph 7(a)(3) of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate (relating to limitation on use of proxy voting to report a measure or matter), members who are unable to be present may have their vote recorded by proxy. (b) At the discretion of the committee, members who are unable to be present and whose vote has not been cast by proxy may be polled for the purpose of recording their vote on any rollcall taken by the committee. Rule 7. Order of Motions.--When several motions are before the committee dealing with related or overlapping matters, the chairman may specify the order in which the motions shall be voted upon. Rule 8. Bringing a Matter to a Vote.--If the chairman determines that a motion or amendment has been adequately debated, he may call for a vote on such motion or amendment, and the vote shall then be taken, unless the committee votes to continue debate on such motion or amendment, as the case may be. The vote on a motion to continue debate on any motion or amendment shall be taken without debate. Rule 9. Public Announcement of Committee Votes.--Pursuant to paragraph 7(b) of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate (relating to public announcement of votes), the results of rollcall votes taken by the committee on any measure (or amendment thereto) or matter shall be announced publicly not later than the day on which such measure or matter is ordered reported from the committee. Rule 10. Subpoenas.--Subpoenas for attendance of witnesses and the production of memoranda, documents, and records shall be issued by the chairman, or by any other member of the committee designated by him. Rule 11. Nominations.--In considering a nomination, the Committee may conduct an investigation or review of the nominee's experience, qualifications, and suitability, to serve in the position to which he or she has been nominated. To aid in such investigation or review, each nominee may be required to submit a sworn detailed statement including biographical, financial, policy, and other information which the Committee may request. The Committee may specify which items in such statement are to be received on a confidential basis. Witnesses called to testify on the nomination may be required to testify under oath. Rule 12. Open Committee Hearings.--To the extent required by paragraph 5 of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate (relating to limitations on open hearings), each hearing conducted by the committee shall be open to the public. Rule 13. Announcement of Hearings.--The committee shall undertake consistent with the provisions of paragraph 4(a) of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate (relating to public notice of committee hearings) to issue public announcements of hearings it intends to hold at least one week prior to the commencement of such hearings. Rule 14. Witnesses at Hearings.--(a) Each witness who is scheduled to testify at any hearing must submit his written testimony to the staff director not later than noon of the business day immediately before the last business day preceding the day on which he is scheduled to appear. Such written testimony shall be accompanied by a brief summary of the principal points covered in the written testimony. Having submitted his written testimony, the witness shall be allowed not more than ten minutes for oral presentation of his statement. (b) Witnesses may not read their entire written testimony, but must confine their oral presentation to a summarization of their arguments. (c) Witnesses shall observe proper standards of dignity, decorum and propriety while presenting their views to the committee. Any witness who violates this rule shall be dismissed, and his testimony (both oral and written) shall not appear in the record of the hearing. (d) In scheduling witnesses for hearings, the staff shall attempt to schedule witnesses so as to attain a balance of views early in the hearings. Every member of the committee may designate witnesses who will appear before the committee to testify. To the extent that a witness designated by a member cannot be scheduled to testify during the time set aside for the hearing, a special time will be set aside for the witness to testify if the member designating that witness is available at that time to chair the hearing. Rule 15. Audiences.--Persons admitted into the audience for open hearings of the committee shall conduct themselves with the dignity, decorum, courtesy and propriety traditionally observed by the Senate. Demonstrations of approval or disapproval of any statement or act by any member or witness are not allowed. Persons creating confusion or distractions or otherwise disrupting the orderly proceeding of the hearing shall be expelled from the hearing. Rule 16. Broadcasting of Hearings.--(a) Broadcasting of open hearings by television or radio coverage shall be allowed upon approval by the chairman of a request filed with the staff director not later than noon of the day before the day on which such coverage is desired. (b) If such approval is granted, broadcasting coverage of the hearing shall be conducted unobtrusively and in accordance with the standards of dignity, propriety, courtesy and decorum traditionally observed by the Senate. (c) Equipment necessary for coverage by television and radio media shall not be installed in, or removed from, the hearing room while the committee is in session. (d) Additional lighting may be installed in the hearing room by the media in order to raise the ambient lighting level to the lowest level necessary to provide adequate television coverage of the hearing at the then current state of the art of television coverage. (e) The additional lighting authorized by subsection (d) of this rule shall not be directed into the eyes of any members of the committee or of any witness, and at the request of any such member or witness, offending lighting shall be extinguished. (f) No witness shall be required to be photographed at any hearing or to give testimony while the broadcasting (or coverage) of that hearing is being conducted. At the request of any such witness who does not wish to be subjected to radio or television coverage, all equipment used for coverage shall be turned off. Rule 17. Subcommittees.--(a) The chairman, subject to the approval of the committee, shall appoint legislative subcommittees. All legislation shall be kept on the full committee calendar unless a majority of the members present and voting agree to refer specific legislation to an appropriate subcommittee. (b) The chairman may limit the period during which House- passed legislation referred to a subcommittee under paragraph (a) will remain in that subcommittee. At the end of that period, the legislation will be restored to the full committee calendar. The period referred to in the preceding sentences should be 6 weeks, but may be extended in the event that adjournment or a long recess is imminent. (c) All decisions of the chairman are subject to approval or modification by a majority vote of the committee. (d) The full committee may at any time by majority vote of those members present discharge a subcommittee from further consideration of a specific piece of legislation. (e) Because the Senate is constitutionally prohibited from passing revenue legislation originating in the Senate, subcommittees may mark up legislation originating in the Senate and referred to them under Rule 16(a) to develop specific proposals for full committee consideration but may not report such legislation to the full committee. The preceding sentence does not apply to nonrevenue legislation originating in the Senate. (f) The chairman and ranking minority members shall serve as nonvoting ex officio members of the subcommittees on which they do not serve as voting members. (g) Any member of the committee may attend hearings held by any subcommittee and question witnesses testifying before that subcommittee. (h) Subcommittee meeting times shall be coordinated by the staff director to insure that-- (1) no subcommittee meeting will be held when the committee is in executive session, except by unanimous consent; (2) no more than one subcommittee will meet when the full committee is holding hearings; and (3) not more than two subcommittees will meet at the same time. Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3), a subcommittee may meet when the full committee is holding hearings and two subcommittees may meet at the same time only upon the approval of the chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee and subcommittees involved. (i) All nominations shall be considered by the full committee. (j) The chairman will attempt to schedule reasonably frequent meetings of the full committee to permit consideration of legislation reported favorably to the committee by the subcommittees. Rule 18. Transcripts of Committee Meetings.--An accurate record shall be kept of all markups of the committee, whether they be open or closed to the public. This record, marked as ``uncorrected,'' shall be available for inspection by Members of the Senate, or members of the committee together with their staffs, at any time. This record shall not be published or made public in any way except: (a) By majority vote of the committee after all members of the committee have had a reasonable opportunity to correct their remarks for grammatical errors or to accurately reflect statements made. (b) Any member may release his own remarks made in any markup of the committee provided that every member or witness whose remarks are contained in the released portion is given a reasonable opportunity before release to correct their remarks. Notwithstanding the above, in the case of the record of an executive session of the committee that is closed to the public pursuant to Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the record shall not be published or made public in any way except by majority vote of the committee after all members of the committee have had a reasonable opportunity to correct their remarks for grammatical errors or to accurately reflect statements made. Rule 19. Amendment of Rules.--The foregoing rules may be added to, modified, amended or suspended at any time.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleague, Senator Moynihan, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance, to introduce legislation establishing a National Commission on the Future of Medicare. This Medicare Commission will serve as an essential catalyst to congressional action, and ultimately lead to a solution that will preserve and protect the Medicare Program for current beneficiaries, their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Mr. President, we have two immense challenges presented by the Medicare crisis. First, we have the short-term problem, the looming insolvency date of 2001. Second, in the not distant future, the vast numbers of baby boomers will challenge the long-term viability of Medicare. Congress must take action immediately on the short-term bankruptcy crisis, where the Commission will help us solve the longer term problem. I am encouraged that President Clinton has moved in our direction by offering in his budget package a $100 billion reduction in Medicare spending growth over the next 5 years. I must admit, however, that I was somewhat concerned when the President, in his State of the Union Address last week, devoted only one sentence to discussing his plans for Medicare. And half of that sentence was devoted to expanding the program. The President stated that his plan extends the life of the Medicare trust fund until 2007. However, in order to achieve this, the President's budget resorts to a budgetary sleight of hand. If we truly are to consider taking steps to preserve and protect the Medicare Program as a whole for future generations, shifting money from one trust fund account to the other does nothing for its long-term health. It only buys us a little extra time. Instead, we should take steps to extend the short-term solvency without budget accounting gimmicks. Relying on a gimmick like the home health transfer has a certain appeal--it buys us some time by extending the short-term life of the Medicare hospital insurance, HI or part A, trust fund which is headed for bankruptcy in 2001. Quite simply, Medicare is spending more than it collects from all sources of revenues. Transferring the majority of the outlays for home health care extends the life of the HI trust fund without having to make any real decisions. Gail Wilsnsky, a well-known health economist, stated recently ``[t]he terms of the transfer of 480 billion of home care should be considered carefully because of the precedent it sets in transferring an obligation into what effectively is the general revenue of the Treasury. Normally, when an expense is brought into part B, a portion of the total spending becomes part of the premium paid by the elderly and the expense itself is subjected to a 20 percent coinsurance charge. This is not being done for the home health care transfer. While an argument can be made that the separation of Medicare into parts A and B, with two separate streams of funding is an archaic holdover from Medicare's inception, removing the limited cost constraints that now exist without reforming the entire program is very risky.'' The anticipated bankruptcy of the trust fund in 2001 means there will not be money to pay the hospital, skilled nursing care, home health care, and hospice care bills of our senior citizens and disabled individuals who reply on Medicare. If we change current law, Medicare trends will continue on a collision course. In 1995, expenditures out of the HI trust fund exceeded all sources of revenues into the trust fund. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that in 2001 Medicare will out spend its revenues and spend down its current surplus, becoming insolvent with a $4.5 billion shortfall. This shortfall grows rapidly to over one half trillion dollars--$556 billion--in 2007. And, this is before the baby-boomers begin to retire in 2010. In the long-term, demographic trends will continue to increase financial pressure on the trust fund, challenging its ability to maintain our promise to beneficiaries. Today, there are less than 40 million Americans who qualify to receive Medicare. By the year 2010, the number will be approaching 50 million, and by 2020, it will be over 60 million. While these numbers are increasing, the number of workers supporting retirees will decrease. Today, there are almost four workers per retiree, but in 2030 there will be only about two per retiree. The supplemental medical insurance [SMI] trust fund does not have the same solvency problem, as it has an unlimited claim on the U.S. Treasury. The SMI trust fund is financed by a monthly premium paid by beneficiaries, which covers 25 percent of the cost of Medicare part B. The remaining costs are paid by general revenues. The SMI trust fund is solvent because the Federal Government is obligated to make up the difference between beneficiary premium amounts and part B costs. Spending for the SMI trust Fund is unsustainable. According to CBO, SMI spending is expected to increase at an annual rate of 9.1 percent between 1997 and 2007, while its premium receipts will grow by only 4.5 percent a year. Under current law, the percentage of costs paid from general revenues will steadily increase. In recent testimony, Joseph Antos, the Assistant Director for Health and Human Resources at CBO, described this situation precisely, ``The SMI program is no more financially sound than the HI program, in the sense that both components of Medicare are growing more rapidly than the economy's capacity to finance them.'' The Commission should also consider that since Medicare's enactment in 1965, there has been a great deal of change in the private health care system in the United States, yet Medicare has remained fundamentally unchanged. Indeed, Medicare beneficiaries do not enjoy the same benefits private sector plans often offer their enrollees. This rigid 31-year-old program is unable to offer the private sector improvements in alternative systems of delivery of care or many technological advances. If Medicare were a television, it would be a 30-year-old, 12-inch black and white model. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today is modeled after two well-known previous bipartisan, bicameral national commissions. First, the mission of the Commission is similar to the 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, established by President Reagan by Presidential Executive Order, December 16, 1981. As was the charge to this 1983 Blue Ribbon Commission, the Medicare Commission is directed to thoroughly review Medicare and make appropriate recommendations. The Medicare Commission will review and analyze the long-term financial condition of both the Federal hospital insurance, HI or Part A, trust fund and the Federal supplementary medical insurance, SMI or Part B, trust fund. Second, the structure of the 15-member Medicare Commission follows more closely the model established by the 1990 U.S. Bipartisan Commission on Comprehensive Health Care, known as the Pepper commission. The Pepper commission was chaired by Senator Rockefeller and issued a report making recommendations on comprehensive health care reform. The Medicare Commission will facilitate our ability to address the Medicare crisis. Ultimately, I hope to see the Medicare Commission put forward a proposal after thoroughly analyzing the options that will truly preserve and protect the Medicare Program, not just through the next 5 years, but for the next generation so that we can leave a legacy of a robust Medicare Program for our children and our grandchildren. Mr. President, now is the time to put partisanship aside. Time is running short, and we need to work together to avert the crisis. Given the very short time that Medicare will remain solvent, and given the demographic facts of the American population, we cannot afford more delay. We need to preserve and protect the Medicare Program. We need to make sure we leave a solid legacy for the next generations. It is no longer time for rhetoric, but time for action. Playing politics with Medicare is simply wrong. Putting off what needs to be done is the cruelest tactic. I encourage my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Thomas, Mack, and Rockefeller to submit a sense-of-the-Senate resolution expressing our gratitude to the Okinawan people for their contributions toward ensuring the viability of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States of America and Japan. My friend and colleague, Rep. Lee Hamilton, is submitting a similar resolution in the House of Representatives today. Mr. President, the Security Treaty forms the core of our bilateral security arrangements with Japan and of our overall security strategy for the Asia Pacific region. Those arrangements have helped provide the peace and stability that have undergirded the region's economic success--from which the United States has benefitted directly. To help ensure the viability of the Treaty, this past December, the United States and Japan agreed on terms to return roughly 20 percent of the land used by the American military. The Special Action Committee on Okinawa Final Report issued by the United States-Japan Security Consultative Committee sets out timetables for the return of the land. It also calls for training and operational procedures aimed at lessening the intrusiveness of American forces in Okinawa and improvements in certain procedures of the Status of Forces Agreement. Even with the coming changes, Japan will continue to provide our forces based in that country with significant amounts of host nation support. And no one in Japan shoulders a more disproportionate share of that burden than the people of Okinawa. For their many contributions to the United States-Japan relationship and the peace and stability of all the Asia Pacific region, the Okinawan people justly deserve our recognition and our sincerest thanks. That is precisely what this resolution does. But it also goes further: the resolution makes it clear that the continued support of the Okinawan people is crucial if we are to maintain a bilateral relationship that serves both our countries' interests, as well as those of the Asia Pacific and the entire world. In light of the need for the support and understanding of the Okinawan people, and of the prefecture's continuing economic problems, I hope the Government of Japan gives serious consideration to some of the ideas that have been circulating on making the prefecture into a bastion of free trade and investment. The surest cure for Okinawa's economic ills is a dose of fundamental market reform. Mr. President, I submitted a similar resolution at the end of the 104th Congress. While that resolution was cleared for passage, Congress adjourned before we could take the measure up for final consideration. Because of the importance of the United States-Japan relationship, I urge all my colleagues to join me in making passage of this resolution possible this year.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Col. John K. Wilson III as he retires after 26 years of distinguished service in the U.S. Air Force. Colonel Wilson is retiring from his position as the executive director of operations, Secretary of the Air Force, Office of Legislative Liaison at the Pentagon. In addition to this position, he also served as Chief, Congressional Inquiries Division. In a previous legislative liaison tour, Colonel Wilson served as a Congressional Inquiries Officer as well as a Senate Liaison Officer. In these critical positions, Colonel Wilson not only served the Air Force well, but he also assisted the U.S. Congress. During his tenure, he worked with hundreds of Members of Congress, responding to their constituent inquiries, lending his expertise in Air Force matters and handling a myriad of unique situations. Colonel Wilson's professionalism, diplomacy, and insight were essential to the flawless planning and execution of well over 100 Congressional worldwide fact-finding travels. His comprehensive knowledge of the legislative process and thorough understanding of Air Force issues made him the perfect liaison between the Pentagon and Capitol Hill. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues who have directly benefited from the superb support Colonel Wilson has provided the Congress and executive branch, in congratulating him for a job extremely well done and wishing he and his lovely wife Andrea, the very best in the future. He will be a success in any pursuit he may endeavor to undertake. Colonel Wilson is a professional among professionals and has brought great credit upon himself and the U.S. Air Force.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Roth pertaining to the introduction of S. 266 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Roth and Mr. Lieberman pertaining to the submission of Senate Concurrent Resolution 5 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this resolution, as well as the one that we are introducing in the Senate today, reflect the recognition, that by any measure, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been a resounding success. It has kept the peace, reinforced geo-political relationships, and provided the foundation upon which we were able to bring the cold war to a peaceful end. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the North Atlantic Council Communique be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, one of the greatest foreign policy opportunities and challenges before the 105th Congress is the consolidation of a wider, peaceful, and democratic Europe. The inclusion of the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe in the core institutions of the transatlantic community has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy for the last 50 years. Its attainment remains both a strategic and moral imperative for the United States. A key step toward this end is the inclusion of democracies from Central and Eastern Europe as full members in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]. This is a step that has been endorsed by the U.S. Congress. It is a step that has been endorsed by the American people. It's a step that must be taken. I was glad to hear the President emphasize last night in his State of the Union Address that the first task of our foreign policy is to build an undivided, democratic Europe. He is right to emphasize that a wider NATO and stable partnership between the alliance and Russia are cornerstones to this vision. As we look to the 21st century, and the uncertainties that still threaten our vital interests and those of our allies--as we see the need to maintain an organization that is dedicated to safeguarding freedoms, promoting democracy, and supporting the rule of law--we realize that NATO is critical to our future. It is not enough to win the cold war; we must now ensure the peace. This is NATO's commission * * * a commission the alliance must continue to carry out. Now more than ever, NATO has the opportunity to fulfill the role for which it was originally intended. Those who know the history of the alliance understand the historic significance of this moment. With the cold war behind us, NATO is now in the position to consolidate a wider democratic Europe--the very reason for which the alliance was born. We must welcome this. Enlarging and strengthening the alliance is a catalyst for increased security, productive communication, enhanced cooperation, and common objectives. An alliance that is outward-looking and inclusive provides a framework for peace that possesses infinite capabilities. For these reasons, the North Atlantic Council recently issued an historic communique that offers a long-awaited blueprint for building the alliance's relationship with the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. The communique calls for the alliance to advance its original objectives by moving toward the integration of these nations. It articulates the North Atlantic Council's intention at its July summit meeting in Madrid, to extend invitations to accession negotiations to one or more countries which have participated in NATO's intensified dialog process. The communique establishes for the alliance the goal of welcoming new members by the time of NATO's 50th anniversary in 1999. It also announces the North Atlantic Council's objective to reach agreement with the Russian Federation on arrangements that will widen and deepen their current relationship in order to enhance security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. Mr. President, NATO enlargement is not a new issue before the Congress, but it is among the most important foreign policy issues the 105th Congress will face. The timeline established by the North Atlantic Council is both worthy and challenging. NATO's 50th anniversary will be in April of 1999. To ensure the accession of new members into the alliance by that date, 16 parliaments or legislatures will have to ratify accession treaties. Considering the important role the United States will have to play in ensuring success in this process, it is incumbent upon the 105th Congress to lead the ratification process. Toward this end, I call upon my colleagues to endorse the goals and timetable established by the North Atlantic Council through a resolution sponsored by Senators Lieberman, Lugar, Mikulski, Hagel, McCain, Cochran, and myself. I encourage my colleagues to approach this resolution with an eye toward the July summit in Madrid. The principal theme of this summit will be enlargement, and this resolution expresses the ``sense of Congress that the extension of membership in NATO to the democracies of Central and Eastern Europe is essential to the consolidation of enduring peace and stability in Europe.'' The resolution we introduce today also reviews congressional support for NATO enlargement--as well as the support of the North Atlantic Assembly which represents over 200 legislators from more than 40 political parties around the world. Most importantly, this resolution declares that Congress regards the political independence and territorial integrity of emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe as vital to European peace and security and, thus, to the interests of the United States. Our resolution calls upon the alliance, during the Madrid summit, to extend invitations to accession negotiations to Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia. It endorses the pledge of the North Atlantic Council that the alliance will remain open to the accession of further members in accordance with article 10 of the Washington Treaty. It also endorses the alliance's decision to seek a charter with Russia that reflects the common interest that Russia and the alliance have in reinforcing enduring peace and stability in Europe. Finally, this resolution reserves the Senate's right of advise and consent over international treaties. It pledges that the Senate will seriously and responsibly review the outcomes of accession negotiations between the North Atlantic Council and prospective NATO members. Passage of this resolution prior to the Madrid summit meeting in July would reiterate and reaffirm both at home and abroad the strong bipartisan support behind NATO enlargement in the United States. This would strengthen the President's position within the alliance on the issue of enlargement as he prepares for the July summit in Madrid. And, it would further reinforce the groundwork that has been laid for NATO enlargement, demonstrating that the 105th Congress is ready and willing to aggressively address this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, to send a strong and unmistakable message to our friends and allies, and to ensure that the NATO's half century of success carries well into the future. I would also like to submit for the Record some important documents concerning the support for NATO enlargement I am finding in my home State of Delaware. On 19 December 1996, the Wilmington Town Council passed a resolution introduced by Council Member Bartowski endorsing Poland's membership in NATO. I ask unanimous consent that this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I thank very much the distinguished Senator for his able leadership.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from New York for his continuing leadership in this matter. I would like to underscore two things that he said. One is that all we seek to do is to make the measurement of inflation as accurate as possible. That is just good government. Second, we are anxious to have the support of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and we will be sending a letter to our colleagues, signed by the two of us, urging them to join us in this good government venture.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today, my friend Pat Moynihan and I are submitting a sense-of-the-Senate resolution regarding the accuracy of the Consumer Price Index. Last week the Finance Committee kicked off our first hearings of the 105th Congress with a very distinguished panel of experts in the field of economics and Dr. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Mr. President, probably the most significant issue 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 accurate CPI. One of the roles in government is to protect American families from inflation. In doing so, it is important that we are able to precisely measure inflation. I cannot emphasize too greatly--that is what these discussions are all about--the 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 in fairness to all is as accurate an index as possible. Obviously, this is a very sensitive issue, affecting retirees and taxpayers directly as well as wage earners and others. In the spring of 1995, the Senate Finance Committee appointed a blue ribbon commission, headed by Dr. Michael Boskin, to study the methodology used to compute our current measure of inflation, the CPI. The panel also included leading experts in the field of price indexes, they include: Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Harvard University; Dr. Ellen Dulberger, IBM Personal Computer Company; Dr. Zvi Griliches, Harvard University; and Dr. Robert Gordon, Northwestern University. In their interim report, released in September 1995, the Boskin Commission concluded that the upward bias using changes in the Consumer Price Index to estimate changes in the true cost of living is about 1 percentage point per year. Dr. Boskin and the other four commission members have now completed their final report and have concluded that this critical government statistic is not as accurate as possible. Since this report suggests that the Consumer Price Index has an annual upward bias of about 1.1 percent, clearly this is a significant finding and should be taken seriously. Dr. Boskin and his colleagues have also suggested to the Finance Committee that a new measure of the true cost of living may be needed. Inaccurate government statistics--particularly one as important as the CPI--are unacceptable. Steps should be taken to change the procedures so that the measure of the CPI is as accurate as possible. I want to stress that any action we take on this report must be broadly and deeply bipartisan. We must also have the full cooperation of and leadership by the Clinton administration. I hope the President will not miss an opportunity to address this issue in his fiscal year 1998 budget he submits to the Congress this week. Clearly this reform will not be successful without the President's leadership.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill which would establish a bipartisan Government 2000 Commission, charged with developing a comprehensive legislative proposal to reorganize, consolidate, and streamline Federal departments, agencies, and activities. Mr. President, this Commission is very similar to the one that was included in S. 929 in the 104th Congress which was reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee under my chairmanship. To make clear our objectives, this legislation includes specific goals for reducing costs and improving the performance. These goals include: a 35-percent reduction in the costs of administration, a tenfold increase in the timeliness of service delivery, a compound annual improvement in productivity of 6 percent, and customer service levels comparable to the private sector. The Commission's reorganization plan must include no more than 10 Cabinet Departments--a reduction from 14--and a substantial reduction in the number of agencies and subdepartmental bureaus, offices, divisions, and other program operating units to eliminate duplication and fragmentation. It is also required to achieve a reduction in the layers of organizational hierarchy and a substantial reduction in the total number of midlevel supervisory, administrative, and political positions. The Commission is charged with considering the consolidation of program service delivery functions into operating units that are independent of individual executive departments, to maximize service coordination, and whether the heads of such program operating units should be nonpolitical, noncareer appointments hired for a fixed-term under an employment contract with specific, measurable program performance goals, to maximize accountability. There will be nine Commission members: Two each appointed by the President, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate majority leader, and one each by the House and Senate minority leaders. The Chairman shall be appointed by agreement of the President, the Speaker, and the Senate majority leader. The Commission is authorized an appropriation of $5 million for fiscal year 1998. The Commission shall report its recommendations in a single legislative package by June 1, 1998. The act provides for fast-track consideration of this legislation. In the Senate, there is no time limit on debate, and only germane amendments will be order. In the House, there will be 10 hours of general debate followed by 20 hours of debate on all amendments.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill which would establish a bipartisan Government 2000 Commission, charged with developing a comprehensive legislative proposal to reorganize, consolidate, and streamline Federal departments, agencies, and activities. Mr. President, this Commission is very similar to the one that was included in S. 929 in the 104th Congress which was reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee under my chairmanship. To make clear our objectives, this legislation includes specific goals for reducing costs and improving the performance. These goals include: a 35-percent reduction in the costs of administration, a tenfold increase in the timeliness of service delivery, a compound annual improvement in productivity of 6 percent, and customer service levels comparable to the private sector. The Commission's reorganization plan must include no more than 10 Cabinet Departments--a reduction from 14--and a substantial reduction in the number of agencies and subdepartmental bureaus, offices, divisions, and other program operating units to eliminate duplication and fragmentation. It is also required to achieve a reduction in the layers of organizational hierarchy and a substantial reduction in the total number of midlevel supervisory, administrative, and political positions. The Commission is charged with considering the consolidation of program service delivery functions into operating units that are independent of individual executive departments, to maximize service coordination, and whether the heads of such program operating units should be nonpolitical, noncareer appointments hired for a fixed-term under an employment contract with specific, measurable program performance goals, to maximize accountability. There will be nine Commission members: Two each appointed by the President, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate majority leader, and one each by the House and Senate minority leaders. The Chairman shall be appointed by agreement of the President, the Speaker, and the Senate majority leader. The Commission is authorized an appropriation of $5 million for fiscal year 1998. The Commission shall report its recommendations in a single legislative package by June 1, 1998. The act provides for fast-track consideration of this legislation. In the Senate, there is no time limit on debate, and only germane amendments will be order. In the House, there will be 10 hours of general debate followed by 20 hours of debate on all amendments.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today we reintroduce the super IRA, a savings plan that is well-known as the Roth-Breaux super IRA. I'm honored again to be joined by Senator John Breaux, in introducing this bill. I believe now, as I did last Congress, that this is extremely well conceived legislation that succeeds in strengthening two fundamental components of our society: the family and the future of our economy. Much has been written and said about both of these lately, particularly as we look to a new century. Likewise, we're hearing more and more about the need to promote personal responsibility and self- sufficiency. The Roth-Breaux super IRA will have a positive influence in all of these areas. Congress understands this. That's why Congress has passed similar legislation in the past. We all know that Washington must promote policies that strengthen family and create an environment where our economy can grow, this is why our IRA legislation in the past has been marked by a strong, cooperative, bipartisan spirit. In 1991, legislation similar to this had 78 cosponsors. In 1994, we had 58 cosponsors and in 1995, 52 cosponsors. I believe this legislation will find similar support. Why? Because this super IRA will go a long way toward strengthening our families and restoring equity to work-at-home spouses and other workers without pensions. It will also boost our Nation's saving rate and lead to capital formation, increased investment and economic growth. The lack of saving in this country, as we all know, is a real concern. Chairman Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve says that the single most important long-term economic issue for this country is savings--savings that are essential for jobs, opportunity, and growth. This super IRA has been designed to address our Nation's need for savings and to provide families with as much flexibility as possible to use their savings not only for their security, but for the important goals and challenges in life. For example, this super IRA allows withdrawals to be made penalty-free to purchase first homes, to pay for college, and to cover expenses during extended periods of unemployment. This super IRA removes many of the Tax Code's barriers to retirement saving. First, this bill increases and phases out the IRA's income limits over 4 years, and increases the contribution limit to keep up with inflation. Furthermore, one of the key features of our bill is that we separate the IRA and the 401(k) or 403(b), so Americans can save the maximum in both, and so that spouses who work at home will not have their savings limited by their husband's or wife's 401(k). To strengthen the way this super IRA serves our families, this legislation not only allows parents to use penalty free withdrawals to help their children meet these goals and challenges, but children can use their IRA's to help their parents. Grandparents can make penalty free withdrawals to help grandchildren. And grandchildren can use their IRA's to help their grandparents. Our objective is to make this IRA as family oriented, as flexible and as useful as possible. It will go a long way toward promoting opportunity and reliance on self and family. Let me stress, this super IRA bill builds on what we did in the Small Business job Protection Act of 1996 and eliminates the unequal treatment of work-at-home spouses that now exists under current law. This bill allows spouses--husbands or wives--who work at home to make equal IRA contributions, up to $2,000, in their own accounts regardless of whether their spouse has an employer pension. With the super IRA, we also create a new type of individual retirement account--an IRA in which an individual's contribution is not tax deductible, but where the earnings can be withdrawn tax free if the account is open for at least 5 years, and the account owner is at least 59\1/2\ when the funds are withdrawn. Mr. President, it's clear to see why this is a bill whose time has come. We have passed it before--in both Houses of Congress--now we must pass it again. It serves the individual. It serves the family. It serves the Nation. It is equitable, restoring spousal contributions to where they should be. It is flexible, offering penalty free withdrawals for life's necessities. It promises the vital capital formation America needs to invest in its future. And it builds upon the very important concept of self-reliance.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today we reintroduce the super IRA, a savings plan that is well-known as the Roth-Breaux super IRA. I'm honored again to be joined by Senator John Breaux, in introducing this bill. I believe now, as I did last Congress, that this is extremely well conceived legislation that succeeds in strengthening two fundamental components of our society: the family and the future of our economy. Much has been written and said about both of these lately, particularly as we look to a new century. Likewise, we're hearing more and more about the need to promote personal responsibility and self- sufficiency. The Roth-Breaux super IRA will have a positive influence in all of these areas. Congress understands this. That's why Congress has passed similar legislation in the past. We all know that Washington must promote policies that strengthen family and create an environment where our economy can grow, this is why our IRA legislation in the past has been marked by a strong, cooperative, bipartisan spirit. In 1991, legislation similar to this had 78 cosponsors. In 1994, we had 58 cosponsors and in 1995, 52 cosponsors. I believe this legislation will find similar support. Why? Because this super IRA will go a long way toward strengthening our families and restoring equity to work-at-home spouses and other workers without pensions. It will also boost our Nation's saving rate and lead to capital formation, increased investment and economic growth. The lack of saving in this country, as we all know, is a real concern. Chairman Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve says that the single most important long-term economic issue for this country is savings--savings that are essential for jobs, opportunity, and growth. This super IRA has been designed to address our Nation's need for savings and to provide families with as much flexibility as possible to use their savings not only for their security, but for the important goals and challenges in life. For example, this super IRA allows withdrawals to be made penalty-free to purchase first homes, to pay for college, and to cover expenses during extended periods of unemployment. This super IRA removes many of the Tax Code's barriers to retirement saving. First, this bill increases and phases out the IRA's income limits over 4 years, and increases the contribution limit to keep up with inflation. Furthermore, one of the key features of our bill is that we separate the IRA and the 401(k) or 403(b), so Americans can save the maximum in both, and so that spouses who work at home will not have their savings limited by their husband's or wife's 401(k). To strengthen the way this super IRA serves our families, this legislation not only allows parents to use penalty free withdrawals to help their children meet these goals and challenges, but children can use their IRA's to help their parents. Grandparents can make penalty free withdrawals to help grandchildren. And grandchildren can use their IRA's to help their grandparents. Our objective is to make this IRA as family oriented, as flexible and as useful as possible. It will go a long way toward promoting opportunity and reliance on self and family. Let me stress, this super IRA bill builds on what we did in the Small Business job Protection Act of 1996 and eliminates the unequal treatment of work-at-home spouses that now exists under current law. This bill allows spouses--husbands or wives--who work at home to make equal IRA contributions, up to $2,000, in their own accounts regardless of whether their spouse has an employer pension. With the super IRA, we also create a new type of individual retirement account--an IRA in which an individual's contribution is not tax deductible, but where the earnings can be withdrawn tax free if the account is open for at least 5 years, and the account owner is at least 59\1/2\ when the funds are withdrawn. Mr. President, it's clear to see why this is a bill whose time has come. We have passed it before--in both Houses of Congress--now we must pass it again. It serves the individual. It serves the family. It serves the Nation. It is equitable, restoring spousal contributions to where they should be. It is flexible, offering penalty free withdrawals for life's necessities. It promises the vital capital formation America needs to invest in its future. And it builds upon the very important concept of self-reliance.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the comedian Henny Youngman told a joke that highlights America's family friendly tax system. ``The people who make our taxes are very nice,'' he said. ``They're letting me keep my mother.'' Certainly, our tax laws were never quite this bad, but the humor hinted at the fact that the laws were not altogether family friendly. The family, in fact, has taken it right in the pocketbook. More and more, we are hearing that oft-quoted fact that today the average American family spends more on taxes than it spends on food, clothing and shelter combined. Today, many families need a second earner to make ends meet, because too much of their income is taken by Government. At the end of World War II, the median income for a family of four was $3,468. At the time, the first $2,667 of income for such families were tax exempt, meaning that three-quarters of median family income was exempt from taxation. Over the years, inflation ate away at the value of the standard deduction and personal exemptions. The result was that average families paid more and more of their income in taxes. In 1983, the median family income for a family of four was $29,184, but only the first $8,783 of income was exempt from tax--less than one- third. As my good friend and distinguished colleague, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has pointed out with these statistics, Government tax policies have adversely affected family life. In 1948, a family of four at the median income level paid 2 percent-- 2 percent--of its income in Federal taxes. Today, a family of four pays 24 percent. The time has come to address this disturbing trend. Our tax policies must be changed in light of current realities and critical needs. The American family has been shackled with the excess burden of taxes, I believe, in part because family was such a constant and stable foundation for our society, an enduring unit that could be depended on to carry the burden. But the consequences of that burden and other economic and social factors have succeeded in ravaging the family. Indeed, in society today, the family is under assault, and too many of the policies that are coming out of Washington are increasing the problem rather than providing the solution. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I intend to work with my colleagues to address these policies and trends, and I laud the spirit of the tax bill introduced today and believe that we can build bipartisan support to advance its overall objectives. The American Family Tax Relief Act is a strong first step towards restoring a sense of economic equilibrium to our families and offers a $500-per-child tax credit, a capital gains tax cut, estate and gift tax relief, and expanded individual retirement accounts. At one time or another, each of these proposals has found bipartisan support, and I believe Senators on both sides of the aisle will see this bill as a strong first step toward achieving a mutually shared objective. This legislation sets the spirit for debate. It has the welfare and future of the family at heart. As introduced, this bill calls for a permanent $500-per-child tax credit for children under 18 years of age. The capital gains tax cut allows individuals to deduct 50 percent of their capital gains and allows families that sell their homes at a loss to treat it as a capital loss for purposes of a tax deduction. This bill allows an individual to pass up to $1 million tax free as a gift during life or at the time of death. It excludes from estate taxes the first $1.5 million in value of certain qualified family-owned businesses or farm interests and 50 percent of the value in excess of $1.5 million. The American Family Tax Relief Act expands the power and availability of IRAs by permitting homemakers to have IRAs, regardless of their spouse's participation in a pension program, and by raising income limits to include more families. It also creates a backloaded IRA that permits after-tax contribution and tax-free withdrawals of earnings after the taxpayer reaches age 59\1/2\. This is a provision I have sought for some time, along with allowing for penalty-free withdrawal for education expenses, which is also included in the package. Again, Mr. President, this is a strong place to start. I appreciate the leadership--particularly our majority leader Trent Lott--for working with us to establish this foundation. Now we must go about the legislative process, building the consensus we need to see it implemented and achieving the real tax relief American families not only desire but need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague Senator Moynihan, introduce a joint resolution that will waive certain provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 relating to the administration's nomination of Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky to the position of U.S. Trade Representative [USTR]. Specifically, the resolution will provide a waiver for Ambassador Barshefsky from the application of section 141(b)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by section 21 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. This provision prohibits the appointment of any person to serve as USTR or Deputy USTR, who has directly represented, aided, or advised or foreign government or foreign political party in a trade dispute or trade negotiation with the United States. The administration has sought the waiver because of questions surrounding Barshefsky's work for the Government of Canada while practicing law in the private sector. Ambassador Barshefsky was already serving as Deputy USTR when the law went into effect. When the Finance Committee acts on her nomination. I will ask it to mark up the joint resolution waiving, in her case, the application of the prohibition to eliminate any questions about her eligibility to serve. Ambassador Barshefsky now enjoys an exemption from this prohibition as Deputy USTR, and I believe that the extension of this exemption by waiver is appropriate. Because this waiver will have the force of law, it must be passed by both the Senate and the House and then presented to the President for signature. In past statements, I have expressed my strong support for Charlene Barshefsky's nomination as USTR. She is a very capable public servant, and I fully expect she will distinguish herself as USTR much as she did in her service as Deputy USTR.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Roth pertaining to the introduction of S. 2 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I would like to say something about a hero. The distinguished historian Stephen E. Ambrose says that we need to teach our children about heroes. It is by understanding the contributions of great men and women that our youth set standards of achievement for themselves. Common heroes provide a sense of unity and inspire us to aim a little higher than we did the day before. This week in Delaware, an outstanding man is being recognized for his more than 50 years of service to community, State, and Nation. His name is Louis J. Amabili. He's a loving husband, a devoted father, an attentive grandfather, and fearless firefighter. He's a man who, for half a century, has risked his life to protect the lives and property of others. Louis is my friend, and I am honored to count him among my friends. He is a member of the Hockessin Fire Company and the founding Director of the Delaware State Fire School. For 32 years, he served as director of that school, leading it to its current pre-eminent position as one of the leading fire training facilities in the United States. During his tenure, the Delaware State Fire School not only built its facility in Dover, but established training centers in Sussex and New Castle Counties, providing fire training centers within 30 minutes of every fire company in Delaware. In additions to these many successes, Louis Amabili also served as president of the New Castle Volunteers Firemen's Association, the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association, and the International Association of Fire Service Instructors. Richard Nixon appointed him to the Fire Prevention and Control Commission, and Delaware Governor Pete DuPont recognized him with the ``Order of the First State.'' Mr. President, Louis Amabili is one of the most well-recognized fire service leaders in America. He served on the Board of Directors of the National Fire Protection Association, and chaired the Fire Officers Professional Qualifications Standards Committee for more than a decade. Louis was a member of the International Fire Service Training Association and received their highest honor for his role in fire service training. He chaired the Joint Council of National Fire Service Organizations and helped establish the National Fire Service Professional Qualifications System. He serves as a member of the board of directors of the Congressional Fire Services Institute--which I have the honor of co-chairing--and he has received that institute's highest honor, the CFSI Fire Service Person of the Year Award. On this occasion, as Louis Amabili retires from a distinguished career, it is my privilege to recognize his years of selfless service, the lives he has touched, the lives he has taught, and the lives he has saved. I want to express my gratitude to his wonderful wife, Carmen, to his son Louis Jr., and to his daughter, Janice, and I want the record to show without question that we do, indeed, still live in a time of heroes. Quite often these valiant men and women live right next door.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the comedian Henny Youngman told a joke that highlights America's family friendly tax system. ``The people who make our taxes are very nice,'' he said. ``They're letting me keep my mother.'' Certainly, our tax laws were never quite this bad, but the humor hinted at the fact that the laws were not altogether family friendly. The family, in fact, has taken it right in the pocketbook. More and more, we are hearing that oft-quoted fact that today the average American family spends more on taxes than it spends on food, clothing and shelter combined. Today, many families need a second earner to make ends meet, because too much of their income is taken by Government. At the end of World War II, the median income for a family of four was $3,468. At the time, the first $2,667 of income for such families were tax exempt, meaning that three-quarters of median family income was exempt from taxation. Over the years, inflation ate away at the value of the standard deduction and personal exemptions. The result was that average families paid more and more of their income in taxes. In 1983, the median family income for a family of four was $29,184, but only the first $8,783 of income was exempt from tax--less than one- third. As my good friend and distinguished colleague, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has pointed out with these statistics, Government tax policies have adversely affected family life. In 1948, a family of four at the median income level paid 2 percent-- 2 percent--of its income in Federal taxes. Today, a family of four pays 24 percent. The time has come to address this disturbing trend. Our tax policies must be changed in light of current realities and critical needs. The American family has been shackled with the excess burden of taxes, I believe, in part because family was such a constant and stable foundation for our society, an enduring unit that could be depended on to carry the burden. But the consequences of that burden and other economic and social factors have succeeded in ravaging the family. Indeed, in society today, the family is under assault, and too many of the policies that are coming out of Washington are increasing the problem rather than providing the solution. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I intend to work with my colleagues to address these policies and trends, and I laud the spirit of the tax bill introduced today and believe that we can build bipartisan support to advance its overall objectives. The American Family Tax Relief Act is a strong first step towards restoring a sense of economic equilibrium to our families and offers a $500-per-child tax credit, a capital gains tax cut, estate and gift tax relief, and expanded individual retirement accounts. At one time or another, each of these proposals has found bipartisan support, and I believe Senators on both sides of the aisle will see this bill as a strong first step toward achieving a mutually shared objective. This legislation sets the spirit for debate. It has the welfare and future of the family at heart. As introduced, this bill calls for a permanent $500-per-child tax credit for children under 18 years of age. The capital gains tax cut allows individuals to deduct 50 percent of their capital gains and allows families that sell their homes at a loss to treat it as a capital loss for purposes of a tax deduction. This bill allows an individual to pass up to $1 million tax free as a gift during life or at the time of death. It excludes from estate taxes the first $1.5 million in value of certain qualified family-owned businesses or farm interests and 50 percent of the value in excess of $1.5 million. The American Family Tax Relief Act expands the power and availability of IRAs by permitting homemakers to have IRAs, regardless of their spouse's participation in a pension program, and by raising income limits to include more families. It also creates a backloaded IRA that permits after-tax contribution and tax-free withdrawals of earnings after the taxpayer reaches age 59\1/2\. This is a provision I have sought for some time, along with allowing for penalty-free withdrawal for education expenses, which is also included in the package. Again, Mr. President, this is a strong place to start. I appreciate the leadership--particularly our majority leader Trent Lott--for working with us to establish this foundation. Now we must go about the legislative process, building the consensus we need to see it implemented and achieving the real tax relief American families not only desire but need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to take a few movements to salute all of our colleagues who are retiring from the U.S. Senate. These are individuals of uncommon character and devoted service--individuals who have strengthened their Nation and enriched each of us who has had the opportunity of serving with them. We all know who these 13 Senators are. In retiring, they will undoubtedly affect the composition and character of this important legislative body. Over the weeks, these Senators have been recognized by their associates, colleagues, friends and constituents. Many tributes have been offered here on the floor. Today, I would like to express my personal gratitude not only to all 13, but to several Senators who had a particular influence on me, the committees on which I serve, and our agendas in those respective committees. Senator Howell Helfin is retiring after three terms as the honorable Senator from Alabama. In our years of working together--getting to know each other in our service to the North Atlantic Assembly--I have grown to appreciate and admire this great gentleman. He has judicial temperament, one that I imagine was carefully cultivated in the many years which prepared him for his service here in Washington. Senator Heflin has a keen understanding of diplomacy and America's eminent position in the world. His dedication to the North Atlantic Assembly, our international interests, along with his service in the Senate, and to his fellow Alabamans qualify him for that honored distinction of statesman. And I feel richly rewarded for the time I've been able to spend with him. Senator David Pryor, also retiring after three terms, is another colleague I want to salute personally. He's the other half of the fly- before-buy duo. Together we worked to create the operational and live fire testing laws for weapons. He was critical in our efforts, instrumental to our success. Many authors and military personnel have documented the lives saved as a result of problems discovered and corrected in operational live fire tests. In other words, there are men and women today who, perhaps unknowing, owe a great deal of gratitude to Senator Pryor and his tenacity in seeing this legislation through. Despite many attempts to ignore and circumvent these laws by the defense buying bureaucracy, Senator Pryor and I provided rigorous oversight, regardless of which party controlled Congress. When the Democrats were in charge, Senator Pryor chaired the hearings. I chaired when Republicans were in charge. Our objective was never lost, and the work moved forward. Our commitment was always to the courageous soldier in the field--the individual dependent on the weapon systems. Another Senator with whom I've had the pleasure of working closely is Sam Nunn, one of the most honorable, fair and bipartisan leaders I've known. Sam and I have alternated between chairing and serving as ranking minority member on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations since 1981. On many occasions, our staffs worked together on joint investigations. We launched the first congressional investigation identifying crack cocaine as a significant drug problem. We investigated airline safety, and explored the Justice Department's handling of the Jackie Presser ghostworkers issue. Senator Nunn has been a staunch opponent of waste, fraud, and abuse, and he has gained world renown as an expert in matters of defense and foreign affairs. Most recently, he and I launched the first investigation of Russian organized crime activities in the United States, continuing PSI's longstanding history of being Congress' primary organized crime investigator. I am also grateful to Senator Nancy Kassebaum and her leadership in health care. Nancy is another one of the profoundly thoughtful Senators who serve as the catalyst for important policies and laws. She was certainly a catalyst in the effort to successfully pass the medical savings account demonstration program, as part of our effort to make health care more accessible for Americans. Another retiring Member of the Senate, after five terms in Senator Mark Hatfield, a man whose dedication to principle has distinguished his career in the State House as well as on Capitol Hill. Among his many legislative successes, I'm grateful for Senator Hatfield's work on behalf of Amtrak, as well as his objective analysis and contributions to debates and initiatives through the years. Likewise, Hank Brown, and his rugged, no-nonsense approach in promoting a strong foreign policy and fiscal responsibility. Hank and I have served together on the North Atlantic Assembly, and we have joined efforts to strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. His eloquence and clear logic make him unusually effective and a pleasure to work with--not to mention his love for St. Bernards--another devotion we share. I appreciate Bill Cohen, our distinguished senior Senator from Maine. Senator Cohen is a noted novelist, a poet. I've found many of his speeches brilliantly enriching, especially a speech he gave a few years ago about the changing culture around us. Bill has been a dogged proponent of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse on the Government Affairs Committee, and he has been active in our efforts to understand and build relationships of trust with the nations of the Pacific. He will be remembered not only for his work with ASEAN, but for his efforts on behalf of NATO, and his chairing of the Munich Conference. Finally, Mr. President, I want to recognize Senator Alan Simpson, a good friend and revered colleague. There are few men who become legends in their own time, but Al is certainly one of them. His easy-going, affable manner and ready wit were equal to his majestic stature and trademark smile. There hasn't been a time when Al's opened his mouth to speak that I haven't waited in anticipation for some new sparkling gem of wisdom, a witty turn of phrase, or an outright joke. Al taught us, as his mother taught him, that humor is the irreplaceable solace against the elements of life; hatred corrodes the container it's carried in. With his humor, he could diffuse even the most impassioned and tensely difficult moments. It was Al who, during one very difficult period--a period of some contention on this floor--told us of the successful marriage philosophy he shares with his wonderful wife, Ann. It was a simple philosophy: ``Never go to bed angry * * *'' he said. ``Always stay up and fight!'' During another heated moment, in the middle of the confirmation hearings on Judge Robert Bork, Al reminded us, with his western charm, the ``Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.'' And it was Al who taught us how to deal with the media. Once, when pressed for his church preference, he answered: ``Red brick!'' Indeed, as the liberal commentator, Mark Shields, has recognized, ``Al Simpson is a man of uncommon wisdom.'' With his retirement, he not only leaves behind a rich legislative legacy, and dear memories for friends, but a reputation akin to that which attends Will Rogers. I can only imagine that in the years and decades ahead, Al, like Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Winston Churchill, and other great wits, will come to inherit aphorisms and jokes that he never told. But then, those of us who know him, realize that he truly deserves such an honor. It has been my pleasure to serve with Senators Simpson, Cohen, Brown, Hatfield, Kassebaum, Nunn, Pryor, and Heflin--as well as with Senator Simon, who we saluted with our bowties last week, Senator Bennett Johnston--four successful terms from Louisiana, Senator Exon, and Senator Bradley, who I've had the pleasure of serving with on the Finance Committee. And I appreciate Senator Pell, another fine leader who leaves a great legacy, both at home and abroad. Mr. President, I salute all those who are retiring this year. Each has lived a life in deeds, not words, and in their actions have written their legacy on tablets of love and memory.