William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I support the regulatory accounting provision that Senator Stevens added as section 645 of the Treasury- Postal Appropriations bill, H.R. 3756. I am pleased that this provision was added to the omnibus appropriations bill. This provision requires the Office of Management and Budget to provide Congress with a report including estimates of the total annual costs and benefits of Federal regulatory programs; impacts of Federal rules on the private sector, State and local government, and the Federal Government; a more detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of rules costing $100 million or more, and recommendations to make regulatory programs more cost- effective. I am pleased that this amendment employs the term ``rule'' which is defined in section 551 of title V, United States Code. This will insure that this report is, indeed, a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of regulation in the broadest sense, including legislative rules, interpretative rules, guidance documents, and the like. In addition, under the amendment, OMB must provide the public notice and an opportunity to comment on the draft report--its substance, methodologies, and recommendations. In the final report, OMB must summarize the public comments. I share Senator Stevens' view that the public has the right to know the costs and benefits of Federal regulatory programs. Congress also must have this information to improve agency performance. The total annual cost of Federal regulatory programs is estimated at $677 billion this year. These costs are passed on to the public, and the tab exceeds $6000 for the average American household. While we have made progress in our struggle to balance the budget for tax-and-spend programs, we are just breaking ground for imposing accountability on the regulatory process. It is long overdue. That is why I sponsored regulatory reform legislation that included regulatory accounting last year. The regulatory accounting report should be a useful tool for Congress. Subsection 645(a)(1) requires OMB to estimate the total annual costs and benefits of Federal regulatory programs. A report from the U.S. Business Administration, ``The Changing Burden of Regulation,'' estimates that these costs will be about $688 billion next year. Those total annual costs (and the benefits) encompass impacts felt both from upcoming rules, as well as older rules that will continue to impose costs and benefits this coming fiscal year. OMB should quantify costs and benefits to the extent feasible, and provide the most plausible estimate. Benefits (and costs) that cannot be quantified should be described in qualitative terms. To generate this information, OMB should draw upon the wealth of studies and reports already done, including the work of Tom Hopkins and Bob Hahn Where there are gaps, OMB must supplement existing information. To conserve its resources, OMB should issue guidelines to the agencies to gather the needed information, as OMB does for the fiscal budget process. Where detailed information on the costs and benefits of individual programs can be produced, it should be presented to Congress. The public comment period should help OMB generate information and make most plausible estimates of costs and benefits. By September 1997, OMB must provide Congress with a credible and reliable accounting statement on the regulatory process. This report should demonstrate the costs and benefits of various regulatory programs. It should highlight those programs or program elements that are inefficient, and it should provide recommendations to reform them. In conclusion, I would like to point out that this effort to enact a regulatory accounting requirement is not a partisan one. Originally, the provision was part of S. 291, a comprehensive regulatory reform bill that was reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee last year when I was chairman by a unanimous 15-to-0 vote. This effort is, not withstanding repeated misstatements, not designed to roll back progress achieved through regulation but is rather intended to assess where we are and allow us to achieve more good for society at less cost. It is time we found out how efficiently we are achieving our legislative goals through regulation. mark van de water

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Finance, it is my responsibility to make sure that tax-related measures are reviewed and evaluated by the Committee on Finance. Like other committees, the Committee on Finance takes very seriously its jurisdictional responsibilities. The House Committee on Ways and Means similarly exercises its jurisdictional responsibilities on tax-related measures in the House of Representatives. Historically, the Committees on Finance and Ways and Means have opposed the inclusion of tax-related measures in appropriation bills. However, because of the unusual circumstances surrounding this appropriations bill, Mr. Bill Archer, chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, requested that the Committee on Appropriations include a tax-related measure in the omnibus appropriations bill. Mr. President, I concur with Mr. Archer's request. But my colleagues should be aware that this is a unique situation. The tax-related measure will expedite consideration of important banking legislation that is also contained in the bill. The tax-related measure does not change the Internal Revenue Code. It merely clarifies the current-law treatment of special assessments that many thrifts will pay in accordance with the banking legislation. The staffs of the Committees on Finance and Ways and Means worked together to develop the tax- related measure. Since the tax-related measure was initiated by the Committees on Finance and Ways and Means, it should be understood that its inclusion in the appropriations bill does not establish a precedent for the Committee on Appropriations to initiate or include tax-related measures in future appropriations legislation. Mr. Archer made a similar statement in his letter to the House Committee on Appropriations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Archer's letter to the House Committee on Appropriations be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Thomas and Nunn to submit a sense of the Senate Resolution expressing our gratitude to the Okinawan people for their contributions toward ensuring the viability of Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States of America and Japan. Mr. President, that 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 benefited directly. Japan provides our forces based in that country with significant 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 U.S.-Japan relationship and the peace and stability of all of 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. Mr. President, I know time is short in this Congress, but I urge all my colleagues to join me in making passage of this resolution possible before we adjourn.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the Senate's passage of the Professional Boxing Safety Act marks a red letter day for what is often called the red light district of sports. For this Senator, it also marks the culmination of nearly 5 years of working to make professional boxing a safer sport for our young people who choose to enter the ring. One of those young men, in particular, is largely responsible for achieving this milestone. I believe it is important that we recognize and acknowledge the contribution of this boxer, from my home State of Delaware--Dave Tiberi. It was through Dave Tiberi's misfortune and subsequent hard work that I focused my attention up close and personal on the problems currently facing professional boxing. On February 8, 1992, in a nationally televised world title fight, Dave Tiberi, an unheralded challenger, lost a controversial split decision to the International Boxing Federation's middleweight champion, James Toney. The ABC-TV announcer proclaimed it as ``the most disgusting decision I have ever seen.'' As a result of that fight, I directed that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations undertake a comprehensive investigation of professional boxing, the first in the Senate in more than 30 years. Unfortunately, that investigation revealed what many of us had suspected--that the problems plaguing the sport remained much as Senator Kefauver found them when the Senate last investigated this issue three decades earlier. First and foremost among all the problems facing the sport today, is protecting the health and safety of professional boxers. During the Olympics in Atlanta, we saw the great lengths to which we go to protect our amateur boxers. Yet, when these and other young men graduate to the professional ranks, we fail to provide even the most basic health and safety protections through minimum uniform national standards. Instead, we leave professional boxers at the mercy of a patchwork system of health and safety regulations that vary widely State by State, both by rule and enforcement. In this day and age, that is not acceptable. That is why I have worked, along with my colleague Senator Dorgan, to ensure this legislation remedies these inequities by establishing, for the first time, minimum uniform national health and safety standards. These provisions will ensure that every professional boxing match in the United States is conducted under these standards. Every professional boxer will know that, no matter where they fight, there will be a doctor at ringside; an ambulance available; and health insurance provided. I also want to commend our colleagues in the House who significantly strengthened this legislation by adopting a provision I have previously proposed--prohibiting conflicts of interest on the part of boxing regulators. My investigation highlighted conflicts of interest to be among the major problems facing boxing today, always to the detriment of the boxers. Dealing with this problem is essential if we are to effect meaningful boxing reform. Dave Tiberi has never fought again, despite numerous lucrative offers. Instead he has dedicated his efforts to working with young people in Delaware and reforming boxing. If there has ever been a role model in boxing for our young people, his name is Dave Tiberi. Although he never got his world title, knowing that his hard work will protect future boxers is his big payday; and that is why Dave Tiberi will always be a champion. Boxing reform is not a marquee issue that appeals to a large constituency. As such, it could be easily pushed aside and lost among all the other issues clamoring for attention in the final days of this Congress. Yet, professional boxing is important, not only to its millions of fans, but primarily because the sport creates opportunities for many young men for whom such opportunities are rare. We owe these young men a system outside the ring that works as hard to protect them as they do inside the ring. That is why I have worked to reform professional boxing. While it does not go far enough, I believe this legislation is a significant step toward achieving that goal. I commend and thank my colleagues for adopting this important legislation.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I rise today to express my thanks to my colleagues for their unanimous support in passing this resolution expressing the Senate's concerns about a series of disturbing developments in Cambodia. Recently, Congress sent to the President H.R. 1642, a bill to extend permanent most-favored-nation tariff treatment to Cambodia. Congress made it clear in that legislation that it was doing so, in part, because it believes normal trade relations with Cambodia could serve to improve the conditions in Cambodia. The resolution we have passed today is meant to send a parallel message--that the United States Senate remains deeply concerned about problems in Cambodia, and will continue to follow events in that country closely. Since 1991, the international community has contributed almost $2 billion to peacekeeping and national reconstruction to Cambodia. Multilateral aid also provides over 40 percent of the Royal Government of Cambodia's annual budget. While the U.N.-sponsored election of 1993 brought a brief period of freedom and democratic improvement to Cambodia, recent developments on a variety of fronts suggest that Cambodia's future remains precarious at best. Most recently, the Royal Government of Cambodia, without appropriate prior consultation with the Cambodian Parliament and despite protestations from Cambodians residing both inside the country and overseas, obtained from King Sihanouk an amnesty for Ieng Sary. This man, brother-law to Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot, served as Deputy Prime Minister of the Khmer Rouge during the period when that loathsome group murdered as many as two million innocent Cambodians. Despite his position during that period, Ieng Sary has--incredibly--disavowed any responsibility whatsoever for the genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge. Just as appallingly, the amnesty granted Ieng Sary may allow him to fully reintegrate into Cambodian society. In fact, he appears likely to form a political party that he will lead into the local and national elections slated for 1997 and 1998. Among other things, this resolution states that in compliance with the Cambodian Genocide Justice Act, the United States should support efforts to bring to justice members of the Khmer Rouge for their crimes against humanity, that the President deem it appropriate to encourage the establishment of a national or international criminal tribunal for the prosecution of Ieng Sary and to provide that tribunal with any information available pertaining to Ieng Sary's alleged involvement in the Cambodian genocide. The resolution also notes that Prince Norodom Sirivudh, former Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister was arrested by the current government under trumped up charges of fomenting a plot to assassinate the Second Prime Minister, Hun Sen. After a summary trial without proper defense, Prince Sirivudh was found guilty by Hun Sen-appointed judges and was sent into exile in France. Another prominent opposition leader, former Finance Minister Sam Rainsy was expelled from the coalition Funcinpec Party and the National Assembly for having criticized the RGC for its lack of transparency in its business deals with foreign firms. Since his expulsion, several members of his party have been murdered. A number of members of another opposition party, the Buddhist Liberal Democratic Party of Cambodia, headed by former Prime Minister Sonn San, died as a result of a grenade attack during that party's national convention. In addition, several editors and reporters from opposition newspapers have been assassinated. Currently, not one of these assassination cases has been solved. Corruption in Phnom Penh is rampant and Cambodia has emerged as a major heroin trafficking center in Asia. Finally, in contravention to the Cambodian Constitution, the RGC has permitted deforestation and timber exploitation on such a massive scale that the agricultural livelihoods of enormous numbers of Cambodians are now threatened. Madam President, all of us in this Chamber want Cambodia to become as swiftly as possible a peaceful, stable, prosperous, free and democratic member of the community of nations. The horrors the people of Cambodia have endured are beyond comprehension. Their resilience in the face of genocide, however, is a tribute to the true character of the Cambodian people. Mr. President, in adopting this resolution, we send an unmistakable message of support to the Cambodian people as they do the hard work of support to the Cambodia people as they do the hard work of restoring and renewing their country.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to indicate my full support for this bill, which returns to the Federal false statements statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, the simple but vital proposition that lying to Congress is as unacceptable as lying to any other part of the Government. This legislation has enormous practical importance for the oversight and investigative work performed by the Senate. As the past chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and the current chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I have chaired many oversight hearings and conducted numerous investigations that have probed the efficacy of Federal Government programs and initiatives. Oftentimes, the Committee and Subcommittee's work has uncovered serious problems, sometimes of a criminal dimension. In the best of circumstances, gathering facts that may not reflect well on an agency, or a program, or an individual is difficult. Willful deceit out of the mouths of witnesses or in the documents they provide to Congress can make that job nearly impossible. Until Hubbard was decided last year, the threat of criminal sanctions under Sec. 1001 was a powerful deterrent to such deceit, and it was the source of appropriate punishment for those who lie to Congress. We need to return Sec. 1001 to Congress' investigative and oversight arsenal, and this legislation will do just that. That being the primary effect of the legislation, it also works well-crafted and necessary changes to other aspects of Congress's ability to investigate, and I support those as well. Many years ago, Woodrow Wilson wrote, ``Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct.'' It is for this fundamental reason--that Congress must be able to scrutinize accurately the matters before it--that I am proud to co- sponsor this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to notify my colleagues that, yesterday, the Committee on Finance completed a markup of H.R. 3815, respecting trade technical corrections and other miscellaneous trade measures. I'm pleased to inform the Senate that the committee favorably reported out the bill unanimously. I want to emphasize to those Members who expressed concern about the inclusion of controversial items on this legislation, that we were careful to craft a non-controversial bill. Any items that turned out to be controversial, including items I strongly supported, were either not included in this bill or were removed from the draft markup document. What we have ended up with on this bill are many worthy miscellaneous trade items that are of interest to many of the Members on and off the Finance Committee. Since time is obviously short, Senator Moynihan and I will seek Senate passage of this bill by unanimous consent as quickly as possible. We have been working closely with the Ways and Means Committee, and hope that the House could accept the current version of the bill by unanimous consent. With a number of additional items, the Finance Committee version of the bill contains all of the provisions that were in the House version with the exception of the hand tools marking provision that had considerable opposition in the Senate. Mr. President, in closing, I just want to emphasize that if Members seek to put any controversial provisions on this bill, we will not have time to get this bill done. Therefore, any help Members can offer to assure speedy passage of this meritorious, non-controversial, and bipartisan bill before the end of this Congress will be greatly appreciated.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to express, once again, my profound concerns over the Japanese Ministry of Finance's [MOF] behavior regarding the United States-Japan Insurance Agreement. I have written several times to the Finance Minister of Japan and the President of the United States and spoken directly with the negotiators involved in this matter, yet Japan continues to fail to fulfill its obligations under the agreement to increase access to its insurance market for foreign competitors. And now, according to reliable reports, MOF intends to take steps that would actually violate the agreement. On or soon after October 1, MOF apparently will allow Japanese companies to enter the third sector of Japan's insurance market, the only sector in which foreign companies have any consequential presence. If MOF takes this action, I believe Japan will have clearly violated the agreement. I have particularly great concerns with the Ministry of Finance's behavior on this issue because it calls into question the entire Government of Japan's willingness to fulfill its written commitments. That is why I consider this the most serious trade matter facing our two countries. Mr. President, our patience has been tested by the continuing refusal of Japan to honor its commitments. If MOF now chooses to violate the agreement, the United States will have no choice but to take appropriate actions in response. I want the Ministry of Finance and the Government of Japan to be under no illusions about how strongly I would view such a violation. I will be working closely with Chairman Archer of the House Ways and Means Committee in urging the White House, the USTR, the Treasury Department and the Department of State to take appropriate actions in response to any violation of the agreement.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to add to the words of praise for Mongolia expressed yesterday by Senator Thomas, chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, when he introduced legislation to extend nondiscriminatory trade status to that country. Mongolia has made striking advances toward the development of a democratic political system and a free market economy. This past July, Mongolians went to the polls and resoundingly voted into Government the Democratic Opposition Party, ending 75 years of control by Communists and their heirs. The new Government's peaceful assumption of power underscores Mongolia's rise to the front ranks of Asian democracies. The new Government in Ulaanbataatar, moreover, has outlined an ambitious plan for faster and continued economic liberalization and political reform. Given these and other developments, I look forward to considering legislation granting to Mongolia nondiscriminatory trade status early in the next Congress.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we have reviewed the central lien registry provisions in the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska. He has removed language that involved matters within the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. We do hope, however, that the Secretary of the Treasury will work with the Secretary of Commerce as the Secretary of Commerce carries out the new requirement my friend from Alaska has described.

Mr. ROTH. The Senator from Alaska is correct. Section 6323(j)(1)(C) gives the Secretary of the Treasury discretionary authority to withdraw a notice of lien filed against a fishing permit if the withdrawal will facilitate the collection of a tax liability by allowing the owner to derive income from the use of the permit.

Mr. ROTH

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

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

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this bill calls for expenditures from the airport and airway trust fund. The airport and airway trust fund is governed by the Internal Revenue Code which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Therefore, at the request of the Commerce Committee, Senator Moynihan and I are offering an amendment to modify the Internal Revenue Code in order to allow expenditures from the airport and airway trust fund as provided in this bill. I am pleased to take action today to ensure continued funding for the airway system, particularly in light of current security and system concerns. It is my understanding that this amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle and there is no objection to it. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I agree with my distinguished colleague as to the urgency for action in this area, and the desire for the Finance Committee to move expeditiously on the tax matters. I have to say, like the Senator from Kentucky, I am very concerned about the security of the airports and want to work very closely with the Commerce Committee in assuring it is adequate, and that whatever financing is necessary becomes available. I yield the floor. Emergency Revocation Amendment to S. 1994

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first of all, I want to join my distinguished colleague from New Jersey in the very kind and gracious remarks he made about the chairman, the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon. Like him, it has been my pleasure to join with him from time to time. I have often sought his counsel. He is a leader, he is a doer, he has brought great wisdom to the Senate, and we will be poorer as an institution without him. I say to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, as I was listening to his remarks and I looked at these two Senators--one from West Virginia and one from Oregon--it seemed to me one of the best reasons to be against a two-term limitation, because of the expertise, knowledge, and good judgment they bring to this institution. We are indeed all richer for it. I must rise to express my disappointment in the funding levels for Amtrak in the fiscal year 1997 Department of Transportation conference report. While the House-Senate conference committee did not reduce Amtrak funding as drastically as the House originally proposed, I am, as I already stated, very disappointed that Amtrak will not receive the full funding contained in the Senate-passed bill. Frankly, we would not have done as well if it hadn't been for the Senate conferees. I do want to express my great appreciation to Senator Hatfield and Senator Lautenberg for their leadership, for their efforts on behalf of Amtrak, and I say that the fight is not over. Mr. President, I believe the appropriation numbers for Amtrak are, frankly, shortsighted and do not help the Nation's transportation needs. Our goal is for Amtrak to be self-sufficient, and we cannot achieve that goal without adequate funding for capital improvements. How can Amtrak be expected to provide better service and attract more riders without the needed funding to modernize? Now, as you know, twice this year, the Senate has voted in support of providing Amtrak the capital funds needed to preserve innercity passenger rail as a critical component of our country's transportation network. On May 23, the Senate overwhelmingly approved a sense-of-the- Senate resolution supporting the creation of a capital trust fund for Amtrak. On July 30, the Senate resoundingly defeated--82-17--an attempt to cut fiscal year 1997 appropriations for Amtrak expenses to a level which would have crippled passenger rail services. But those votes of confidence from the Senate cannot balance Amtrak's books. Financial investment in the system by Congress is critical. Recently, Amtrak announced that fiscal year 1997 included cost-cutting and revenue- enhancing initiatives, designed to keep Amtrak on a course of reducing its dependence on Federal operating grants. Amtrak is committed to the goal of totally eliminating its dependence on Federal operating grants by the year 2002. But it cannot do this without a strong source of capital funding. As my colleagues are well aware, I have been working to provide a dedicated source of capital funding for Amtrak to avoid just this sort of annual appropriation crisis, in which Amtrak's viability hangs by a thread. My staff and Senator Robert Byrd's staff have been meeting in an effort to craft a proposal that would take 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax to the highway trust fund, with one-half cent of that tax going to Amtrak for 5 years. The legislation would provide a total of $2.8 billion for Amtrak over the next 5 years. Under this proposal, for the first time ever, Amtrak would have a dedicated source of funding. New revenue for capital improvements would allow Amtrak to purchase new locomotives, to operate more efficiently, and to attract new passengers. As my good friend, the Senator from New Jersey, pointed out, there must be Northeast corridor improvement if we are going to increase the number of passengers that utilize the system and thereby increase the revenue available to help make the railroad system self-supporting. As a Nation I believe that we must take steps now to make sure that passenger rail service remains a viable means of transportation into the next century. The current funding levels for Amtrak will not allow this to happen. I might add that the conference report does include my earlier proposal to allow States to use remaining dollars for Amtrak, and I believe this is a wise move. In closing, I want to again restate my disappointment in this conference report but urge my colleagues to support Senator Lautenberg's and other efforts to boost Amtrak's funding for next year through an omnibus appropriations bill. In addition, I also ask that my colleagues continue to support my efforts to give Amtrak a secure funding source for capital improvements to avoid just this sort of appropriations crisis. In closing, I once more thank my distinguished chairman and ranking member for their efforts in this regard, and for that I am indeed grateful. Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it is fitting for me to offer a few words concerning Howard Greene and his service to the U.S. Senate. Howard is from my home State of Delaware. He began his service to the Senate in 1968, as a doorman in the gallery. At the time, he was only 26, attending the University of Maryland. His objective was to become a history teacher. Howard was an ambitious young man--bright and extremely able. In this environment, he gained the attention of Senators and became more and more interested in the political process-- especially the daily proceedings here on Capitol Hill. When an opportunity presented itself in the early 1970's, Howard moved into the Republican Cloakroom. After this important promotion in Howard's young life, you can imagine his surprise when his mother said, ``Congratulations, Dear. Does that mean you'll be hanging up the Senators' coats?'' It was while in the Cloakroom that Howard distinguished himself as one who could get things done. His attention to detail, and service to others became defining qualities, as did his keen insight into complex legislative issues. Those who knew Howard, trusted his insights, and his activities drew him into even greater involvement with the daily affairs of the Senate. They prepared him well for a new assignment as Assistant Secretary for the Minority, under Mark Trice. With the election of Ronald Reagan and the Republican majority, Howard was appointed Secretary by Howard Baker. It was while he served in that capacity that many of us came to appreciate his organizational skills, his diplomacy, and leadership. Howard has now served 2 years as Sergeant at Arms. His love for the Senate and the legislative process have continued. In his years of service, he had done Delaware proud. From his upbringing in the small town of Lewes, to his work in the most powerful legislative body on Earth, Howard Greene is, indeed, a smalltown boy who made good. Mr. President, I yield back the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this tax amendment is not appropriate at this time. This appropriations bill is not a revenue bill. If this amendment passes, this appropriations bill will be potentially subject to a blue slip by the House. A blue slip would in effect kill this bill and the Senate would have to start anew. Therefore, a tax amendment at this time would unnecessarily jeopardize the appropriations process. Amending an appropriations bill is not the proper way to make fundamental changes to international tax policy. The international area is a very complex section of the Tax Code. No one is happy when certain companies move abroad and manufacture products that are sold back to the United States. At the same time, it is important to understand that American companies are players in the global economy and that expansion abroad means more jobs back home. In fact, by 1990, manufactured exports of American companies with operations overseas created over 5 million jobs in the United States. If we are to continue to provide good jobs for our citizens, it is important that we stay competitive in this emerging global economy by expanding our presence abroad. American companies with overseas investments have been waging a hard fight, but a successful one to keep exports flowing from the United States. American companies operating overseas also help the balance of trade for the United States. According to the Department of Commerce, in 1993, American companies operating overseas helped reduce our trade deficit by $11.5 billion. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that manufacturing by foreign affiliates of American companies increases exports from the American parent company located in the United States. This amendment attacks the tax rule known as deferral and would materially increase the cost to many American companies engaged in business overseas. This increase in costs will make it more difficult for American companies to compete with foreign manufacturers that are not subject to these additional costs. This amendment is based on the assumption that if companies don't build plants abroad, they will automatically build plants in the United States. In fact, many companies would probably just decide not to expand at all. If additional production facilities are not added, American companies would lose economies of scale that help them compete in the global marketplace. These economies are particularly crucial in the commodities business where price really matters. American companies would also be hurt in their efforts to expand in foreign markets. Our companies are motivated to invest abroad in order to penetrate markets otherwise commercially inaccessible to American firms and then expand that market share. The absence of American companies abroad would limit our ability to sell to foreign customers. There is a positive relationship between investment abroad and domestic expansion. Leading American corporations operating in both the United States and abroad have expanded their employment and sales in the United States, their investments in the United States, and their exports from the United States at substantially faster rates than industry generally. During the 1980's, American exporting companies had a better record on employment than the typical large American manufacturing firm. The contention that American manufacturing companies are harming our economy by shifting jobs abroad and importing cheaper products into the United States simply does not bear up under scrutiny. Rather, the exact opposite is true. Investment abroad by American exporting companies provides the platform for growth in exports and creates jobs in the United States. Overall, this amendment would hurt our economy. It would decrease the activities of domestic exporters and decrease jobs in the United States. This misguided amendment would give foreign-owned companies a huge competitive advantage and help them provide economic and job benefits for their home countries at the expense of the United States. We do not need to adopt legislation that hurts companies who go abroad for the legitimate purpose of becoming competitive in the international market. Overall, this area is one of extreme complexity and of greatest importance to our economy and the creation of jobs in America. The major international tax policy changes which would result from this amendment are within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. It would be inappropriate and dangerous for such significant changes to the Tax Code to be made piecemeal on the Senate floor. As I have stated in the past, the Finance Committee will be holding hearings to look at the international area and the kind of issues that are raised by this amendment. For these reasons, I must respectfully oppose this amendment.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the pending sense-of- the-Senate offered by my colleague, Senator Burns. This measure strikes what I believe to be the proper balance. It recognizes both our obligation to comply with the World Trade Organization's [WTO] recent dispute-settlement finding against the United States' regulation of imports of reformulated and conventional gasoline, and our obligation to take fully into account the protection of the public health and the environment in evaluating all options for compliance. As the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I want to underscore the importance of the United States honoring its obligations and commitments under the WTO, particularly with respect to the dispute- settlement process. Mr. President, creation of an effective binding WTO dispute-settlement mechanism was an important achievement of the Uruguay Round trade agreement. I believe that any attempt to frustrate U.S. efforts to implement the WTO's decision on reformulated and conventional gasoline, or any future WTO decision, would be harmful to U.S. interests and the multilateral trading system for the following reasons. First, WTO rules permit retaliation to be taken against a WTO member country that refuses to implement a WTO decision. Therefore, U.S. failure to comply with a WTO decision could prompt our trading partners with an interest in the decision to seek authority from the WTO to retaliate against the United States. Such retaliation could come in the form of increased tariffs on U.S. exports. Second, I believe that U.S. failure to implement a WTO decision would undermine the WTO dispute-settlement process and our ability to end unfair foreign trade practices. Other countries may use U.S. non- compliance as an excuse for refusing to implement WTO decisions that are unfavorable to them, including the many WTO disputes the United States is currently pursuing against other countries' trade restrictions. Third, I worry that if WTO decisions are ignored by the United States or other countries, the ability to enforce WTO obligations generally is sharply reduced, as is the value of the obligations themselves. A weakening of WTO obligations would be a major setback for the multilateral trading system and could complicate any future efforts to further expand the system and reduce existing trade barriers. For these reasons, Mr. President, I am heartened that this Sense of the Senate recognizes the important U.S. interests in complying with the WTO's recent decision on reformulated and conventional gas and in maintaining the integrity of the WTO dispute-settlement process. Finally, I would like to make two further points on the WTO decision at issue here. I hope that these points will clear up any misconceptions surrounding United States compliance with the WTO's finding that current Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] regulations discriminate against foreign refiners in Brazil and Venezuela and do not comply with WTO rules. First, the WTO decision does not dictate what actions the United States or the EPA must take to come into compliance with the decision, because under WTO rules the United States retains the discretion to decide the best way to comply with the WTO's finding. Second, as my good friend Senator Chafee, chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, will point out, the WTO decision does not undermine the United States' ability to enforce its environmental laws. In its decision, the WTO was very careful to note that it did not object to the goals of the Clean Air Act or the United States' right to take measures to protect the environment. Nor does the decision require the United States to lower its environmental standards. Instead, the decision simply found that the United States had not adequately explored ways to achieve its environmental objectives without discriminating against imports. I appreciate having the opportunity to share my views on this important matter.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I believe this is an area that Treasury and the IRS need to revisit. I join the Senator from Minnesota in encouraging them to do so.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Louisiana and look forward to reviewing any thinking he may have for future legislation on this matter. discrimination under new irs section 936

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I will yield such time as the distinguished Senator from Kansas desires.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this has certainly been a busy month. I appreciate not only the perseverance of my colleagues, but also the willingness of the many valiant staff members who have been working around the clock--both here and on the House side. This Congress began with great promise, and I'm pleased to say that we are drawing near conclusion with great accomplishment. With the passage of this small business legislation Americans everywhere will have tools necessary for increased opportunity, greater achievement, and more certain security. This is important. It's important for our future, for the well-being of American families, and for the strength of our communities. And what a departure this is from the past--from the old philosophies that ran this city. It was then that Washington seemed to have only three criteria when it came to American businesses: if they moved, tax them; if they kept moving, regulate them; if they stopped moving, subsidize them. I believe this legislation demonstrates that those days are over. This legislation demonstrates that this Congress understands that opportunity for Americans, security for our families, is directly tied to the strength of small business. There are 22 million small business owners who provide paychecks for 6 out of 10 Americans. These risk takers provide more than half of our economy's output, and what we're demonstrating with this legislation is that this Congress is ready and willing to help create an environment where there can be greater growth, opportunity, and jobs--and environment where these small businessmen and women can hire, expand, and modernize. Among the many important provisions offered in this legislation, first and foremost is an increase in the amount of equipment eligible for expensing. We raise the current law level of $17,500 per year to $25,000 per year, beginning in 1997 and fully phased in by the year 2003. Next, we include a package of subchapter S corporation reforms that will permit more shareholders in S corporations, the use of S corporations for estate planning purposes, and increased flexibility for subchapter S corporation business use. We also include a package of pension simplification provisions. An important element of this package is a new pension plan directed to small business, known as SIMPLE. The SIMPLE plan developed by Senator Dole will enable small business owners to set up pensions with less record keeping and guaranteed benefits to their employees. Additionally, tax exempt organizations, as well as State and local governments, will be able to offer section 401k pension plans. One provision in this legislation that I'm particularly proud of is the new spousal IRA. This will permit homemakers to contribute up to $2,000 per year to an IRA, the same amount as their spouse. This represents an increase of $1,750 over current law, and will go a long way toward creating self-reliance and retirement security for American families. Among other important changes offered by this legislation is a 6- month delay in the effective date for electronic filing of taxes for small business. In other words, small businesses will be provided more time to become familiar with, and prepare for, the electronic filing program that was part of NAFTA. These, Mr. President, are some of the major provisions of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. In addition to these important changes, we offer a package of extensions of expiring tax provisions. These include an extension of the tax-free treatment of employer provided education expenses. Other important extensions cover the research and development tax credit, the orphan drug tax credit, and a new work opportunity tax credit. Along with these were extend tax deductible contributions of appreciated stock to certain charities, the section 29 tax credit for alternative fuels produced from biomass and coal facilities, and a moratorium on the collection of diesel tax paid by recreational boaters at marinas. Another very important provision in this legislation--one that is not so much associated with strong businesses as it is with strong families and a strong America--is the new credit for adoption expenses. This tax credit will provide $6,000 for special needs adoptions and $5,000 for other adoptions. This, Mr. President, will go a long way to helping loving parents provide homes for children who will now be raised in families. Mr. President, these are only a few of the many components of this important legislation. One final change, I would like to mention is that extension of the generalized system of preferences trade program, otherwise known as GSP. This extension will run through May 31, 1997, and will help our exporters better compete in the global economy. It's important to note that this conference agreement is a bipartisan effort--a bipartisan effort that is fully paid for. It contains incentives that will go a long way toward creating an environment for growth, job creation, economic security, and real opportunity for Americans. With the changes we propose in this legislation, small business men and women will have greater incentives and resources to move our economy forward. As I've said many times, taxation and regulation have profound influences on the ability of nations to create jobs. What we do with this legislation is take some of the burden off the backs of American small business men and women. My hope is that this is only a beginning. Mr. President, as we complete action on the H.R. 3448, the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many staff members who worked long and hard on this bill. Senate Finance Committee majority staff--Lindy Paull, Frank Polk, Mark Prater, Dough Fisher, Brig Gulya, Sam Olchyk, Tom Roesser, Rosemary Becchi, Lori Peterson, Erik Autor, and Jeremy Preiss. Senate Finance Committee minority staff--Mark Patterson, Jon Talisman, Patti McClanahan, Maury Passman, and Debbie Lamb. Senator Lott's staff--Annette Guarisco and Susan Connell. Senator Daschle's staff--Larry Stein, Alexandra Deane Thornton, and Leslie Kramerich. House of Representatives Ways and Means majority staff--Phil Moseley, Chris Smith, Jim Clark, Donna Steele Flynn, Paul Auster, Tim Hanford, John Harrington, Norah Moseley, Mac McKenney, Thelma Askey, and Meredith Broadbent. House of Representatives Ways and Means minority staff--Janice Mays, John Buckley, Mildeen Worrell, Kathleen O'Connell, Beth Vance, Bruce Wilson, and Maryjane Wignot. Joint Committee on Taxation staff--Ken Kies, Mary Schmitt, Carolyn Smith, Joe Mikrut, Cecily Rock, Ben Hartley, Mel Thomas, Harold Hirsch, Barry Wold, Steve Arkin, Tom Barthold, Tom Bowne, Barbara Angus, Brian Graff, Leon Klud, Judy Owens, Laurie Mathews, Alysa McDaniel, Joe Nega, Angela Yu, and a special thanks to Bernie Schmitt and his excellent estimating staff who worked long into the night on several occasions.