William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today is the day we have reached the top of a great divide. We can clearly see both what lies ahead and that which is behind us. Today is the day we decide whether we dare to press forward and change a welfare system that is crippling children and families. Today is a day of contrasts--39 months ago, President Clinton promised the Nation's Governors and the American people that he would end welfare as we know it. Nothing happened. He abandoned welfare reform and instead pursued a misguided attempt to take Government control over the world's finest health care system. It didn't work. Today, the Republicans in the House and Senate are introducing legislation which will deliver on the promise of welfare reform and which will protect the health benefits of needy families as they move from welfare to work. Today we are introducing welfare and Medicaid reform based on the bipartisan recommendations of the Nation's Governors. While the Clinton administration has pursued policies of national control from Washington, we believe the future of these programs belong in the States. Without even having seen our proposal, President Clinton labeled Medicaid reform a ``poison pill.'' We think it is good medicine. Under our proposal, Federal spending for the Medicaid program will total $371 billion over the next 6 years. This represents an average annual growth rate of 6.5 percent between 1996 and 2002 while still achieving savings of $72 billion compared to current law. But $371 billion represents many important things in addition to how much the Federal Government will choose to spend on the third largest domestic program in the Federal budget. It represents bipartisan compromise. It represents the future of how Government will work to help families escape welfare dependency. And it represents the future of governmental relationships in our constitutional system of federalism. First, $371 billion represents an important element of compromise in the political process. In the budget negotiations with President Clinton last December, the Republican leadership recommended Medicaid savings of $85 billion. During the negotiations, President Clinton wanted to reduce the savings level for Medicaid to $59 billion. At that time, there was a recognition by the administration that Medicaid spending indeed was out of control. For example, between 1994 and 1995, total Federal outlays grew by 3 percent. But Medicaid spending grew nearly three times as fast. On a number of occasions, the administration has indicated that the President intends to reduce Medicaid spending by $59 billion. The President's fiscal year 1997 budget released in March includes saving of $55 billion. Thus, by setting Medicaid spending at $371 billion, we are meeting President Clinton halfway. The difference between us is now $13 billion. This is less than 2 percent of the total Federal Medicaid spending over the next 6 years. This is a difference of 16 cents per Medicaid recipient per day. When President Clinton vetoed the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, he argued that the Medicaid budget savings cut too deeply. The adoption of today's budget resolution and the introduction of this legislation clearly demonstrates that the debate over Medicaid is not about spending. The issue is, who will control the spending, Washington, or the States? In February, the Nation's Governors unanimously adopted a proposal to restructure the Medicaid Program. Democratic and Republican Governors alike have called upon the President and Congress to dramatically change the Medicaid Program. The Medicaid proposal we are introducing reflects the Governors' policies, including guarantees for children, pregnant women, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Together, the Democratic and Republican Governors have testified before Congress that budget savings should be between $59 and $85 billion. The Republican proposal of $72 billion in savings reflects this spirit of bipartisan compromise and is the midpoint of these savings figures. The Medicaid debate therefore is about policy, not budget. Medicaid is the largest welfare program and must be part of the solution for moving families from welfare to work. It costs more than the AFDC, Food Stamp, and SSI Programs combined. The growths in the welfare programs are intimately linked to Medicaid. Medicaid is the nucleus of authentic welfare reform. The Nation's Governors support reform and share the common goal to end the status quo. Democratic and Republican Governors have forged a bipartisan blueprint for reform. Our legislation reflects the principles and framework of the Governors' proposals and meets their goals. Nearly everyone, including President Clinton, recognizes that the welfare system is broken and must be fixed. The Governors, Democratic and Republican alike, know that Medicaid and welfare were in the same car wreck and both require major reconstructive surgery as soon as possible. The Governors understand there are major problems in the Medicaid Program. To begin with, Medicaid is an all-or-nothing proposition. A person either qualifies for all Medicaid benefits or no Medicaid benefits. There is no flexibility in the current system to provide benefits tailored to a family's needs. As such, the welfare system often creates disincentives to work and gross inequities for low-income working families, many of whom have no other way to provide health care for their children. For the individual, the current Medicaid program is often self- defeating as it encourages dependency. Many proud families can describe what they are forced to do to acquire and maintain Medicaid coverage. If a family's income rises above the eligibility level by just $1, the entire Medicaid package is taken away. Medicaid performs as it was designed 30 years ago--$731 billion therefore represents a new opportunity to refocus our welfare programs to help the present and future generations to escape dependency. Governors know that Medicaid is a critical link in moving families from welfare to work. They understand it can be difficult to convince a family that work pays more than welfare if the price includes the loss of their health insurance. The Medicaid current program discourages expansion of coverage and innovation. There is little flexibility or reward for the States to experiment with ways of improving access to care. The Governors have testified how their ideas to cover more families have been stopped cold by Federal rules and regulations. The bureaucracy often thwarts targeting of benefits which, for example, could be more effective in lowering infant mortality rates. Medicaid lags far behind the private sector in adopting progressive managed care strategies which have saved employers and working families billions of dollars. Two-thirds of the people covered by employer-sponsored health plans today are enrolled in some type of managed care plan. In contrast, only about one-quarter of the Medicaid recipients are in any form of managed care. Medicaid contains a number of barriers to managed care. For example, Florida is facing major disruptions in its entire Medicaid system because two of its best HMO's do not meet Medicaid's ``75/25'' requirements. Freed from the choke hold of the Federal bureaucracy, States will be able to harness their enormous purchasing power to improve the delivery of services at lower costs. The central issue of the pending Medicaid debate is who can best design a State's public health insurance program--the Federal bureaucracy or the States? The idea that the children and elderly citizens in a State must be protected from their Governor and State legislators is not only wrong. Mr. President, it is insulting. Finally, slowing the rate of growth represents a fundamental decision about the future of federalism. Our elected State officials are hostages to the demands of the current Medicaid Program. The Federal- State partnership cannot survive the skyrocketing cost of the Medicaid Program which ricochets throughout State budgets. For example, in 1990, Medicaid replaced higher education as the second largest State spending category, exceeded only by elementary and secondary education. In 1987, elementary and secondary education accounted for 22.8 percent of State spending. Medicaid took 10.2 percent of State spending. According to the latest report issued by the National Association of State Budget Officers, the share of State spending for elementary and secondary education has declined to 20.9 percent while Medicaid's share has nearly doubled to 19.2 percent. If present trends continue, Medicaid will soon pass elementary and secondary education as the largest item in State budgets. Medicaid has seized the power of decisionmaking from State officials. It is simply draining resources from other priorities. As summarized by the State budget officers' report, ``Medicaid * * * continues to limit the ability of decisonmakers to use the budget as a tool for implementing public policy.'' Last January, President Clinton proclaimed an end to big government. Nothing could demonstrate a true allegiance to this pledge better than to return the responsibility and authority for welfare programs to the States. In sum, the critical difference between President Clinton and the Republicans is not about the level of Medicaid spending. Mr. President, the difference lies in the vision of the proper roles of Government and in the faith of the American people to govern themselves.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to offer a sense-of-the-Senate regarding funding for Amtrak. My amendment has a very simple and important purpose. It states that Congress should establish a secure source of financing, no less favorable than that provided to other transportation modes, for capital improvements to intercity passenger rail. Recognizing Amtrak's severe needs for capital investment, I have introduced a bill, S. 1395, that would give Amtrak a dedicated source of funding. This legislation has already been approved by both the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee. The legislation creates a new intercity passenger rail trust fund which would be funded by transferring revenues from the one-half cent excise tax that is currently going into the mass transit account. If this legislation is enacted, Amtrak would be able to use $2.8 billion over 5 years for capital improvements, and States that do not have Amtrak service would be able to fund capital expenditures related to rail operations. Some of my colleagues have argued that taking one-half cent from the mass transit account would hurt the viability of this account. I would like to clarify that the establishment of the intercity passenger rail trust fund would not have an adverse impact on mass transit or any other modes of transportation. There is currently a large unspent balance in the mass transit account, totaling about $10 billion. My legislation would only cost $2.8 billion over five. To ensure that the mass transit account would not be adversely affected by transferring the one-half cent, the bill provides that Amtrak would be prevented from receiving any funds from the rail trust fund if the balance in the mass transit account is insufficient to cover transit spending for the current and following fiscal years. Current projections indicate that this would not occur over the 5-year life of the rail trust fund. Mr. Chairman, we are all working toward an Amtrak which operates without a Federal operating subsidy, which provides quality service, and which is financially stable. Amtrak now covers approximately 80 percent of its operating costs with self-generated revenue, up from just 48 percent in 1981. Yet we also know that no intercity rail passenger service anywhere in the world operates without some degree of public sector financial support. Mr. Chairman, if Amtrak is to stay alive and become economically healthy, there is no doubt that it will need the labor and management reforms contained in the Amtrak authorization bill which I know Senators Lott and Pressler and other Members hope to see enacted this year. Amtrak will need to continue to do its own internal restructuring. It will also need a dedicated trust fund to support capital needs in the same way we provide capital for highways and airports. Investment in all modes of transportation is important, but we have gone about it in a lop-sided way. Purchasing power for Federal highway programs has increased by 48 percent from 1982 to 1996. It has increased 78 percent for aviation, but has decreased 46 percent for passenger rail. In fact, Amtrak currently receives less than 3 percent of all Federal transportation spending. To attain balance, we must balance our financial support to all transportation components, including passenger rail service. As I have stated before, a secure source of capital funding is necessary for Amtrak's future economic health. New capital investments will allow Amtrak to operate more efficiently. With new equipment, Amtrak will attract substantial new ridership--bringing with it increased revenues and allowing Amtrak to eliminate its dependence on Federal operating subsidies. It currently costs Amtrak $60 million per year to operate and maintain its old equipment, which frequently breaks down and often requires parts to be specially made. As a Senator living along the Northeast corridor, I cannot stress how important it is that we have intercity rail service. Depending on the Senate schedule, I ride the train almost daily between Wilmington and Washington. Without Amtrak, I would not be able to live in Wilmington and work in Washington. Here in the Northeast, Amtrak is the dominant public carrier, with more than 10 million riders a year. Between Washington and New York it takes care of 43 percent of the combined air/rail passenger market. The need for rail service is also growing in other parts of America. For example, Amtrak service between San Diego and Los Angeles serves two million people. Routes also are growing between New York and Boston; Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Detroit; and between Portland and Seattle. In fact, many of our rural communities are almost completely dependent on Amtrak for their transportation needs. As someone concerned not only about the environment, but about traffic congestion, especially in the Northeast, where we lack the lands and resources for new roads, I am a proponent of Amtrak. Simply put, Amtrak is safe, fuel efficient, speedy and the best transportation alternative for millions of Americans. It's $2.2 billion budget directly generates some 25,000 jobs nationwide, and more than than 33 million Americans across the country commute to work on Amtrak- operated systems throughout the country. I am grateful for the service Amtrak provides me and the thousands of men and women who depend every day on Amtrak. If Congress hopes to privatize Amtrak in the next 5 years, and if we support continued intercity passenger rail service--service that is vital to both rural and urban areas--we must vote for a dedicated trust fund for Amtrak. Mr. President, thank you and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today the Senate continues debate on the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution. This budget resolution would balance the Federal budget by 2002 using realistic economic assumptions. Let me be clear, however, that it would have been my preference if the budget resolution had retained the flexibility in the first reconciliation bill to allow the Finance Committee to develop a tax relief bill for working families. However, I was assured by the chairman of the Budget Committee that the conference report on the budget resolution will resolve the differences between the reconciliation instructions to the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. I, therefore, urge the Senate conferees to ensure that the conference report contain the option for some tax relief in the first reconciliation bill. Our Nation's working families are in need of tax relief so that they may more easily provide for their children. I believe it is our duty to respond to their need and give them a tax cut coupled with our efforts to balance the Federal budget. Let me just say a few words about the first reconciliation bill that will be moving through the Finance Committee next month. It is my intention to mark up the welfare and Medicaid reform proposals as outlined by our Nation's Governors. This package will meet the savings goals outlined in the budget resolution with $72 billion in savings in the Medicaid area, and $53 billion in the welfare reform package. The Governors' bipartisan plan provides States with flexibility and incentives for moving ahead with fundamental reforms in both of these programs. I remain hopeful that their resounding support and unanimous vote in favor of these reforms will help move this necessary legislation through the Senate in a timely fashion, and that President Clinton will sign this bill--having already vetoed two welfare reform bills. Mr. President, today's budget resolution clearly demonstrates that the debate over Medicaid and welfare is not about spending levels, but instead about who will control the funds? Washington, or the States? This Senator agrees with the Governors. Give the flexibility to the States. Mr. President, last year Republicans proposed to preserve, protect and strengthen the Medicare Program. We worked hard to put together a balanced proposal that did not cut Medicare but slowed the rate the cost of the program was expected to grow. The budget resolution before us would also provide continued increased growth in Medicare spending. This 1997 budget resolution increases annual per beneficiary Medicare spending from the current average spending of $5,300 in 1996 to $7,000 in 2002. This translates to 43 percent of the total program spending growth from 1996 to 2002. Mr. President, the time has come to put an end to out of control Federal spending that has taken money from the private sector--the very sector that creates jobs and economic opportunity for all Americans. The American people are crying out for a smaller, more efficient government. They are concerned about the trends that for too long have put the interests of big government before the interest of our job- creating private sector. They are irritated by the double standard that exists between how our families are required to balance their checkbooks and how government is allowed to continue spending despite its deficit accounts. I believe the outcome of spending restraint for our Nation is one of the most important steps we can take to ensure the economic opportunities for prosperity for our children and for our children's children. As a nation--and as individuals--we are morally bound to pass opportunity and security to the next generation. The Federal bureaucracy must be reformed to meet the needs of all taxpayers for the 21st century. I am convinced that it is through a smaller, smarter government we will be able to serve Americans into the next century. The President's recent budget proposals for next year offer clear evidence of the lack of political will to make the hard choices when it comes to cutting Government spending. His budget does not take seriously the need for spending restraint. In fact, the only path that the President proposes is one that leads to higher Government spending, higher taxes, and ever-increasing burdens for our children. Deficit spending cannot continue. We can no longer allow waste, inefficiency, and overbearing government to consume the potential of America's future. I am committed to spending restraint as we move to balance the budget. Mr. President, the Republican-led Congress has acted to restrain Federal spending many times over the past year and a half. After the President vetoed the balanced budget last fall, we moved ahead with other legislation that would help cut Federal spending. In fact, earlier this year, the Republican-led Congress passed the line-item- veto legislation, a tool that will to help trim Federal spending. We all know that we need every possible tool to help reduce Federal spending. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I urge that they join me in supporting the budget resolution later this week. Student Loan Budget Scoring

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the news by our esteemed majority leader that he will be resigning both his leadership post and his Senate seat is, indeed, bittersweet. I am sure I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that the Senate will miss Bob Dole--his intelligence, his courage, his love for his country, and his unparalleled leadership skills. In Europe, 50 years ago, as a young lieutenant, Bob Dole was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for his country in war. And today for the sake of his country and the Congress, Bob Dole is willing to leave the job he loves because he loves his country and Congress so much. This is a bold move by a man whose life has been the ultimate story of courage. America needs his courage, his moral compass, his leadership in the White House, and this move will enable him to focus much more on the road to the White House. Because of Bob Dole's leadership, the 104th Congress will be remembered as the Congress which finally said enough is enough. No more excuses. No more Washington gimmicks. Balance the budget. With Bob Dole's leadership we have forever altered the debate. The question is no longer whether to balance the budget, but how; not whether to cut taxes, but how; not whether to reduce the size of the Federal bureaucracy, but how; not whether to reform welfare, but how; and not whether to return power to the States, but instead how. Under Bob Dole's leadership, the Congress for the first time in four decades passed legislation to balance the Federal budget. Bob Dole's legacy of leadership in the Senate will only be surpassed by what he will do for America from the White House. I am proud to be a Member of the Dole team, and I will be even prouder to assist a Dole administration next year in carrying out Bob Dole's agenda for America: lower, fairer, simpler taxes, less Government and a balanced budget.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it is time to repeal the 1993 Clinton gas tax increase. On Wednesday, Senator Dole, Senator Gramm and I, along with a number of our colleagues, introduced legislation that would do just that. I wish we would have been able to repeal this tax on tax freedom day. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were unable to agree to the compromise package that Senator Dole had offered them. Today is another day, one in which I hope we will see repeal of the 4.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax. During the 1992 Presidential election campaign, then-candidate Clinton, when asked about Federal excise taxes, said, ``I oppose Federal excise tax increases.'' But as with other views that Bill Clinton has held, this one was not adhered to for very long. In fact, in 1993, President Clinton, as part of a $268 billion tax increase, the largest tax increase in history, embraced a permanent 4.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax. I like to remind my colleagues that President Clinton originally proposed a Btu tax, which translated into a 7.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax increase. Just last October, the President admitted to Americans that he had raised our taxes too much. I agree and believe that right now every driver in America also agrees. Last month, gas prices were higher than they had been in a decade. The administration and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have responded to this crisis by calling for investigation of the oil companies. Certainly, if there is any price gouging going on, we ought to know about it and we ought to stop it. But, we need to take action now. What we in Congress can do right now is repeal a tax that only adds insult to injury for every driver in America, a tax that, again, is part of a package of increases that Bill Clinton himself admits is too high. Last Friday, the Finance Committee held a hearing to discuss the effect of the Clinton 4.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax increase and to explore the possibility of repeal. We heard from several representatives from industries that are affected by the increase. The panel included representatives from the Air Transport Association, the American Trucking Associations, the American Bus Association, the Association of American Railroads, as well as the Service Station Dealers of America and Allied Trades. These panelists provided our committee with useful insight to the damaging effect the permanent 4.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax has upon their industry and their customers. In addition, the American Automobile Association, which serves more than 38 million drivers, submitted testimony supporting repeal of the 4.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax. The American Automobile Association said in their written testimony that repeal of the 4.3-cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax restores the integrity to the gasoline tax as a user fee, and it helps restore public trust in the Federal Government and integrity to the Highway Trust Fund. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle at the Finance Committee hearing and here on the Senate floor have expressed concern that the tax benefit derived from repeal of the 4.3-cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax would not be passed on to consumers. During the hearing, one of the witnesses was Mr. Melvin Sherbert, chairman of the legislative committee of the Service Station Dealers of American & Allied Trades. He is also an owner and operator of two Amoco stations in Prince Georges County, MD. I asked Mr. Sherbert whether he and other service station owners would pass on the tax benefit from repeal of the 4.3-cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax. Mr. Sherbert responded, and I quote: I know that [prices] would go down. . . . The moment we receive [the benefit from repeal of this tax] we would put that on the street. The other witnesses at the hearing testified that they too would pass on the benefit. Since the hearing we have also received letters from a number of oil companies and industries assuring us that the benefit from repeal will be passed through to their customers. We in Congress cannot control market prices. But what we can control is the tax burden we impose on the American people. Repealing the 4.3- cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax, therefore, will reduce the tax burden on gasoline and that which the American people must bear. It will also send a clear message from Congress to the industry, that we want to keep prices low for the consumers, and that we are willing to do our part. We strongly encourage them to do theirs. I would like to remind my colleagues, that when President Clinton raised taxes $268 billion in 1993, he said he was raising them on the rich. We knew then that that was not true. Now there is no doubt. President Clinton has raised taxes not only on the middle class but also on low-income families, and now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are denying these low-income families tax relief. The truth is, Mr. President, that every person who drives a car, who buys groceries, who takes the bus, the train, or a plane has to pay this tax. These are not all rich Americans. In fact, Americans who are hit the hardest by this regressive tax are people at the lowest income levels, those making less than $10,000 a year. Repeal of this regressive tax, therefore, would benefit all Americans, especially those with modest incomes. It is a well-known fact that 4.3-cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax not only disproportionately affects low-income people, but it also hits people in rural areas harder than it does those in more metropolitan areas. President Clinton knows this. In February 1993, just months before he signed into law the largest tax increase in history, said: For years there have been those who say we ought to reduce the deficit by raising the gas tax a whole lot. That's fine if you live in the city and ride mass transit to work. It's not so good if you live in the country and drive yourself to work. Despite this statement, the 4.3-cent-per-gallon-tax increase was enacted. I agree with President Clinton's 1993 statement. People in rural areas should not be penalized because they live in areas that require them to use their cars and travel longer distances. For example, in my home State of Delaware, which contains many rural areas, the average family pays $463 in gas taxes per year. This figure includes both State and Federal gas taxes. When the 4.3-cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax is repealed, the average Delaware family's tax burden will be reduced by $48--a good first step. Some of my colleagues argue that the 4.3-cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax is no different than other gas tax increases used for deficit reduction. I disagree. The 1993 Clinton gas tax increase is different from other gas tax increases before it. This gas tax increase went, and continues to go, entirely to the general fund. Unlike in past years, no portion of the Clinton gas tax increase goes to the highway trust fund. Thus, none of this money goes to pay for building and repairing highways. President Clinton and many of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have argued that this tax is going to reduce the deficit. But, in fact, a study released last week shows 44 cents of every dollar Americans paid for the Clinton tax increase did not go to reduce the deficit. Instead, once again, Americans' tax dollars went to pay for more Government spending--for bigger government. The Clinton gas tax increase did not get a single Republican vote because Republicans believe in cutting wasteful Government spending, rather than increasing taxes to pay for more Government spending. So while in the scheme of Government programs the 4.3-cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax may not seem to be a paramount issue, it represents what separates Republicans from the big Government spenders. While the President purports to favor balancing the budget, at best he would do so by matching big spending with high taxes. Our belief is that we should cut spending and lower taxes on the American people. Mr. President, it is time to give Americans a break from taxes and big Government. I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will allow the Senate to move forward, and stop blocking tax relief for working Americans. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to take some time to respond to a remark made by President Clinton in his press conference Wednesday. President Clinton said, and I quote, ``I ask the Republicans in Congress to consider something else. This is the first time your party has controlled both Houses of Congress at the same time since 1954. What is the record you will present to the American people and leave for history?'' Well, I must say I am glad that President Clinton asked. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I would like to respond in the area of taxes: this Congress cut taxes. By contrast, when President Clinton's party controlled Congress, taxes skyrocketed Again: we cut taxes. President Clinton and the 103d Congress raised taxes. Here is a chart that shows what happened to taxes when the Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress: taxes increased by the largest amount in history--$268 billion. Now, on the other side of the chart, in green, we see what happened with the Republicans in control of Congress--we passed a $245 billion tax cut. But, that was vetoed by the same President who signed the $268 billion tax increase. So, our Republican record is of tax cuts--letting Americans keep more of what they earn so that they can spend it or save it as they see fit. Tax cuts that allow businesses to expand, hire more people and pay their employees more. Tax cuts that allow Seniors to keep more of their Social Security benefits. Tax cuts that allow more Americans to save tax free for their retirement, or their first home, or their children's education, or their health care. Tax cuts that end the Tax Code's penalty against marriage. President Clinton, tax cuts are the record of this Republican Congress. What is the record of President Clinton and the 103d Congress? A world record tax increase and a veto of a tax cut. Frankly, Mr. President, I prefer our record, and I think that most of America does too. I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am greatly disappointed that my Democratic colleagues are continuing to block repeal of the Clinton gas tax. When President Clinton and the Democratic Congress, without a single Republican vote, passed the biggest tax increase in our Nation's history in 1993, they said that their $268 billion tax increase was a tax increase on the wealthy. Well, now they have a chance to repeal a tax that hits the lower and middle income people the hardest, and they are refusing to do so. Make no mistake, the gas tax, which was part of that massive tax increase, is a tax burden that is borne by virtually every American. Every mother who drives her children to school, every commuter, every family who drives to church, every senior who rides the bus to go shopping, every family planning a summer vacation gets hit by this tax. Let us be clear. Democrats are denying tax relief to each of these Americans. Incredibly, some of my Democratic colleagues have called for even higher gas taxes. Maybe they were not listening when President Clinton said last fall that he thought he raised taxes too much. Despite this admission by President Clinton, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are threatening to shut down the Senate because they do not want to let this tax cut for working Americans come up for a vote. The distinguished minority leader said yesterday that the Democrats would shut down the Senate over this tax cut. By shutting down the Senate, the Democrats are now blocking not only a tax cut for working Americans, but they are blocking the taxpayer bill of rights; they are blocking consideration of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget; they are blocking the opportunity for commonsense health care reform; they are blocking reauthorization of Amtrak. Mr. President, while I am disappointed by the words and actions of some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I am not surprised. Let me explain. This is a chart comparing the records on taxes of the 103d Congress, which was controlled by Democrats, to the tax record of this Republican-controlled Congress. As this chart shows, the Democrats passed the largest tax increase in our Nation's history--$268 billion. This was without a single Republican vote. And, while they said at the time that the tax increase was for deficit reduction, a study released last week shows that 44 cents of every dollar of that tax increase has gone to more big Government spending. That is why Republicans continue to believe that the way to reduce the deficit is not to raise taxes, but instead to cut wasteful Government spending. This chart also shows that the Clinton tax rate increase was retroactive--reaching back to the Bush administration. The tax record of the 103d Congress included a top tax rate increase to 39.6 percent which devastated small business, and is probably part of the reason why so many Americans feel that their wages have stagnated. When these small businesses, which are the biggest creators of jobs in this country, have to give more money to the Federal Government, they have less money for expansion, pay raises, and job creation. The Democratic 103d Congress' tax record also included an increase in taxes on Social Security benefits up to 85 percent--an outrageous increase. The 103d Congress also, of course, raised gas taxes by 30 percent. So, the tax accomplishments of the 103d Democratic Congress included a hard hit at many Americans and they were not all rich. But what a difference a Congress makes. This Republican Congress has a much different record on taxes. Instead of raising taxes, we have cut taxes. The 104th Congress has passed legislation that has been signed into law including: allowing working seniors to keep more of their Social Security benefits by increasing the earnings limit; tax relief for the thousands of service people in Bosnia; a reinstatement and subsequent increase of the self-employed health insurance deduction; and a measure to prohibit States from taxing the benefits of former residents who have retired and moved to other States. These tax changes benefit millions of Americans. And, if President Clinton had signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, the tax burden on millions more working Americans would be lighter. Families, in particular, would have benefited from the Republican budget, which gave parents a $500 tax credit for each child. Our budget also reduced the capital gains rate, phased out the unfair marriage penalty, provided a deduction for student loan interest, and expanded tax-deductible individual retirement accounts. The difference between the two records couldn't be more stark. The last Congress increased taxes by a record amount, while this Congress cut taxes. Mr. President, it is my hope that this Congress can undo the economic damage that the last Congress has done. Repeal of the Clinton gas tax is a good place to begin. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, last Saturday the White House political machine was running at full tilt trying to convince the American people that welfare reform is well underway when, in fact, President Clinton has vetoed welfare reform twice. Once again we find that the administration is using the old theory as to whether you can fool all of the people all of the time. This time, the administration is trying to use figures to confuse the public into believing that it is implementing a successful welfare reform strategy when, in fact, it has not. Last Saturday, President Clinton told the American people that, All across America the welfare rolls are down, food stamps rolls are down, and teen pregnancies are down compared to 4 years ago. Unfortunately for the administration, the facts get in the way of the rhetoric. According to the latest available data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the estimated average monthly number of AFDC recipients for 1995 was 13.6 million. The final figures for all of 1995 are not yet available, and there is a 9-month average from January to September 1995. By comparison, the monthly average for all of 1992 was 13.8 million recipients. This is a modest decline of 200,000 people, or 1.5 percent. But the real story about the welfare rolls which this administration does not want the public to see is how the current welfare rolls compare to previous years and administrations. This first chart shows the number of people receiving AFDC benefits over time, and while the estimated 1995 AFDC caseload is 13.6 million people, the average monthly number of AFDC recipients between 1970 and 1995 was 11.3 million. When you look back at the AFDC program over time, you find that the AFDC rolls under the Clinton administration are still well above the historical levels. Comparing 1995 to the averages of the 1980's, it is even more dramatic. If the 1995 welfare rolls had declined to the level of the 1980's, there would have been 2.7 million fewer people on AFDC. Let me also point out, as this chart shows, that the AFDC rolls were relatively constant throughout the 1970's and 1980's. There was an average of 10.6 million AFDC recipients over the 1970's. In the 1980's, the AFDC rolls rose at a slightly higher level, at 10.8 million. The AFDC rolls increased dramatically in the early 1990's. In fact, the AFDC rolls reached their highest point ever during the Clinton administration in 1993. There have been only 2 years in which the AFDC caseload has ever exceeded 14 million people, and those years were 1993 and 1994. Until 1994, there were 14.1 million recipients on AFDC, well above the 1992 level. If the welfare rolls would have declined just to the historical average, never mind ending welfare as we know it, there would be 2.2 million fewer people on AFDC than there are today. At best, the Clinton administration can only claim that the number of AFDC recipients is just now returning to the level of 4 years ago. Thus, President Clinton is claiming success for bringing the number of AFDC recipients to a level which is nearly 20 percent higher than the historical average. It is a little bit like the teenager claiming victory in the Indianapolis 500 just because he found the keys to the family car. In the Food Stamp Program, we find similar patterns but the news is slightly worse for the White House spin doctors. Let me first point out, as this second chart shows, that the 1995 food stamp caseload was higher than the 1992 level, not lower, as the administration has claimed. On average, there were about 900,000 more food stamp recipients in 1995 than in 1992. And even if you use only 1 month of data, the most recent food stamp caseload is still higher than the 1992 level. The February 1996 food stamp caseload was at 25.7 million people. This is 300,000 more people than the 1992 level. And second, there were nearly 7 million more food stamp recipients in 1995 than for the 25 year historical average. Over the past 25 years, the average monthly number of food stamp recipients is 19.4 million people. In 1995, there were 26.3 million people receiving food stamps. There were nearly 6 million more food stamp recipients in 1995 than the average for the 1980's. As welfare rolls are linked at least in part to the economy, you should expect the number of welfare recipients to decline even without any change in welfare policy. We can see this relationship especially in the food stamp program in the late 1970's and 1980's. This chart shows significant growth beginning in 1979. At the same time the median money income for families was declining in real terms from $39,227 in 1979 to $36,326 in 1982, food stamp caseload peaked in 1981 at 22.4 million recipients. But the chart shows the subsequent steady decline in food stamp caseload during the Reagan administration to less than 19 million recipients in 1988 and 1989. What was happening with the economy? Well, the median money income for families during the Reagan-Bush years increased to $40,890 in 1989 in real terms. The relationship follows in bad economic times as well. Caseloads increased once again as family income declined sliding down to $37,905 in 1993. According to Census Bureau reports, the 1993 poverty rate for all families with children under age 18 was 18.5 percent, the highest level since 1962. If administration officials can claim success, they need to explain precisely which Clinton welfare policy change is responsible for bringing the caseload back to the 1992 level. We need to question whether the Federal bureaucracies at USDA and HHS are really responsible for this decline. The waivers the President continues to talk about appear to have very little if any effect. Obviously, the administration can claim credit for only those waivers which have been actually approved and implemented since 1993. Even then, the waivers must be evaluated to determine if they are or not some other factors were, indeed, the cause of the change. In 1993, only four State welfare waivers were implemented. Obviously, these four waivers had no effect on other States. They may not have had any effect within the respective States depending upon when they were implemented during that year. In 1994, 14 waivers were implemented, in 1995 another 7. But these figures tell us very little. Waivers may not be implemented throughout the State. A State may have more than one waiver, some of which may have no impact on caseload. Some States with waivers have seen increases in their welfare caseload. What this confusion should really tell the American people is that waivers are no substitute for authentic welfare reform. President Clinton did not mention that the welfare rolls and other programs have increased from their 1992 levels. In September 1995, the most recent data available, there were 6.5 million people receiving supplemental security income benefits. This is an increase of nearly 1 million people from December 1992. We have also added about 5 million people to the Medicaid Program since 1992. Mr. President, here are a couple of more facts to go with the White House data. It has now been 39 months since President Clinton outlined his welfare reform goals to the American people and promised to deliver welfare reform to the Nation's Governors. Instead, he has vetoed authentic welfare reform not once but twice in the past 5 months. Mr. President, there are important differences between a vision and an optical illusion. The Republicans have outlined their vision for ending the vicious cycle of dependency through restoring the timeless values of work and family life. Meanwhile, the White House magicians will continue to conjure up a few minor, if not meaningless, figures in an attempt to divert the public's attention from the real facts of welfare reform.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it has been 39 months since President Clinton outlined his welfare reform goals to the American people. But he has failed to deliver on his promise. Welfare reform was not enacted in 1993 nor in 1994. Sixteen months ago, President Clinton declared at a joint session of Congress that, ``Nothing has done more to undermine our sense of common responsibility than our failed welfare system. It rewards welfare over work. It undermines family values.'' As a matter of record, the new Republican Congress passed welfare reform twice in 1995. H.R. 4, the ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1995,'' received bipartisan support in both the House and Senate as it was being drafted. But the President rejected this bipartisan approach. It has now been 16 weeks since he vetoed authentic welfare reform legislation for the second time. Mr. President, few people have dared to look inside H.R. 4 as it was, after all, a complex bill reflecting a complex welfare system. Today, I would like to recommend a recent article on the Republican welfare proposal. The article describes how the bill incorporates three different conservative approaches to solving the problems which plague our failed welfare system. Let me quote from the conclusion of the article entitled, ``Welfare Fixers.'' What is especially interesting about the three conservative strands of thought about welfare is that despite the theoretical differences among them, together they provide a coherent guide as to how to fix a broken system. As men are not angels, Charles Murray's negative incentives have their place. But neither are men brutes, and hence something more is needed than a ``technology'' of behavioral change. As Marvin Olasky reminds us, a rebirth of the spirit of religious charity would change many lives for the better. And as Lawrence Mead reminds us, in a commercial republic such as ours, work is the proper condition for all who are able. The article goes on to say that: Indeed, the politicians have seen the big picture in a way that is perhaps not so easy for the lone social thinker to do. The Republican welfare-reform bills in Congress, along with the many state plans being put into effect by Republican governors, make use of Murray's incentives, Olasky's religious charities, and Mead's workfare. If there are theoretical and practical difficulties with each of these approaches, it is precisely the combination that may make conservative welfare reform politically palatable and even, in the end, effective. Mr. President, you might expect such praise to come out of the Heritage Foundation or the National Review or another prestigious conservative organization. However, this particular article was written by Adam Wolfson, the Executive Editor of the Public Interest and was just published in this month's edition of Commentary. Republicans understand, and H.R. 4 reflects the reality, that there is not a singular approach to welfare reform. We believe that if families are going to escape from the vicious cycle of dependency, they must be enabled to find their own way out. Welfare reform is not simple because human beings are complex. The goal of welfare reform for all families to leave welfare. But the path on how they get there is not necessarily a straight line. Nor, under the Republican approach, must all families follow the same path. In contrast, this is precisely why Washington will never be able to end welfare as we know it. The bureaucrats in Washington see people only in terms of numbers, not as individuals. In the tradition of scientific management, everything must be reduced to bureaucratic procedures and mathematical equations. But by vetoing welfare reform, the President ignored the most important number of all. That is, if we do nothing, the number of children on welfare will increase in the coming years. When he talks about work and family values, President Clinton may talk like a Republican, or at least like a New Democrat. But he acts like an old bureaucrat by opposing reforms which are not controlled by Washington. By his vetoes, he is protecting the bureaucracy and accepting the status quo in which more children will fall into the trap of dependency. The causes and cures of poverty involve some of the most intimate acts in human behavior. What many families on welfare need cannot be sent through the mail nor reproduced in the Federal Register. There is no flaw in admitting that we do not understand how or why individuals will respond to the various incentives and sanctions present in every day life in modern society. The mistake is believing, especially after 30 years of evidence to the contrary, that Washington does know how to apply these incentives and sanctions to the lives of millions of people. Under the present system, welfare dependency is allowed to become a permanent condition. This is one of the cruelest features of the welfare system because it saps the human spirit. The true measure of success will be whether the timeless values of work and family life are restored. Only then while we help free families from the present welfare trap and save future generations from its effects. To do this, we must give the State and local governments all of the tools they need to change the existing welfare system. Different families have different needs. These tools must include Medicaid, the largest welfare program. For some families, the potential loss of the value of health care coverage locks them into dependency. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Adam Wolfson's article, ``Welfare Fixers,'' printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to President Clinton's actions to open our conservation reserve lands to cattle grazing. As someone who is concerned about the environment, I am disappointed by his decision. The conservation program pays ranchers to take ecologically fragile land out of grazing. It has been a very successful program and has put away some 36 million acres away as a nature preserve. By removing these acres of land from cattle grazing and creating areas of undisturbed vegetative cover, the program has created habitat for many types of wildlife across the Great Plains and the Midwest, including waterfowl, pheasants, prairie grouse, raptors, and migratory songbirds. These species need undisturbed cover to nest and raise young successfully. But good green grass is hard to come by. The price of feed is up and the price of cattle is down. For some, the solution to higher beef prices may be to open up restricted land to grazing. But as Richard Cohen quickly pointed out in today's Washington Post, ``First the oil reserves, then the conservation reserves and next-- maybe--the Federal Reserve.'' In the name of environmental protection, this Congress fought off any attempts to allow grazing on ecologically sensitive land. In fact, in last month's farm bill we provided significant funding for the Conservation Reserve Program and made sure that wildlife habitat was a primary objective of the reserve program. By opening all 36 million CRP acres nationwide to grazing and haying with few constraints and little apparent consideration for the scope of the emergency, the Clinton administration has eliminated much of the wildlife value of the Conservation Program. In the Great Plains, it is now nesting season, and if cattle are allowed on the land, ducks and grassland songbirds are going to get trampled. Grass is growing where it has not grown in years and species that were once threatened are making a comeback. Unfortunately, President Clinton's action probably has negated all that progress this year. I am also disappointed that the Clinton administration made this decision without consulting the environmental and sportsmen communities. The conservation community, the Agriculture Department, even the environmentalist were surprised, and, frankly, I am surprised. I keep asking myself how can someone who calls himself an environmentalist justify opening up some of our most fragile and protected areas to cattle grazing? I believe that President Clinton's actions directly contradicts the belief that the Clinton administration truly cares about the environment. This situation demonstrates that, once again, the interests of sportsmen, conservationists, and the public still rank far below those of subsidized commodity agriculture. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington Post article to which I earlier referred.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of this bill, on which Senator Simpson and others have labored so hard and for so long. The bill will do much to stem the tide of illegal immigration into this country. During the Judiciary Committee's mark up of the bill in March, several provisions were added that address the problem of criminal aliens in this country. I want to draw my colleagues' attention in particular to these provisions, because they significantly strengthen the Federal Government's ability to deport and exclude aliens who have committed serious crimes in our country. Senator Abraham pushed for these provisions in committee, and he is to be commended for that effort. I would like to offer a brief historical perspective on the nature of the criminal alien crisis, based on my past investigative and legislative work in this area. Criminal aliens represent a problem of enormous proportions, and a problem, regrettably, that our present criminal and immigration laws do little to address. In simplest terms, criminal aliens are noncitizens who commit serious crimes in this country. Currently, aliens who commit certain serious felonies are deportable or excludable. The problem is that at present we permit such aliens to go through two completely separate systems-- one for their crimes, and one for their immigration status--in a way that invites abuse and creates confusion. The results are dismal. At my direction during the previous Congress, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations conducted an investigation and held 2 days of hearings regarding criminal aliens in the United States. The subcommittee's investigation found that criminal aliens are a serious and growing threat to our public safety. They are also an expensive problem. Under even the most conservative of estimates, criminal aliens cost our criminal justice system hundreds of millions of dollars each year. No one, including the INS, knows for sure how many criminal aliens there are in the United States. A study by our subcommittee staff estimated that there are about 450,000 criminal aliens in all parts of our criminal justice system including Federal and State prisons, local jails, probation, and parole. Incredibly, criminal aliens now account for an all time high of 25 percent of the Federal prison population. Under current law, aliens who commit aggravated felonies or crimes of moral turpitude are deportable. But last year only about 4 percent of the estimated total number of criminal aliens in the United States were deported. The law is not being enforced in part because it is too complex with too many levels of appeal. It needs to be simplified. The law is also not being enforced in part because INS does not have its act together. The INS is unable to even identify most of the criminal aliens who clog our State and local jails before these criminals are released back onto our streets. As things now stand, many criminal aliens are released on bond by the INS while the deportation process is pending. It is not surprising that many skip bond and never show up for their hearings, especially in light of the fact that the INS makes little effort to locate them when they do abscond. In 1992 alone, nearly 11,000 aliens convicted of serious felonies failed to show up for their deportation hearings. It is safe to assume that many of them walk our streets today. A frustrated INS official described the current state of affairs aptly when he said of criminal aliens--and I quote--``only the stupid and honest get deported.'' The others abuse the system with impunity. Ironically, criminal aliens who have served their time and are fighting their deportation routinely received work permits from the INS, which allow them to get jobs while their appeals are pending. One INS deportation officer told the subcommittee staff that he spends only about 5 percent of his time looking for criminal aliens who have absconded, because he must spend most of his time processing work permits for criminal aliens with pending deportation proceedings. This is an outrageous situation. Although, our investigation found that the INS is not adequately responding to the criminal alien problem, the INS does not deserve all the blame. Congress has made it far too difficult for the INS and law enforcement officials to identify, deport, and exclude criminal aliens. In response to these problems, I introduced legislation last Congress and again during this one that would simplify the task of sending criminal aliens home. I am gratified that through the work of Senator Abraham and the Judiciary Committee, S. 1664 contains some of the provisions in my legislation, as well as some additional improvements. Among them are the following: First, the bill broadens the definition of aggravated felon to include more crimes punishable by deportation. Second, it prohibits the Attorney General from releasing criminal aliens from custody. Third, it requires the Attorney General to deport criminal aliens--with certain exceptions--within 30 days of the end of the aliens' prison sentence, and mandates that such criminal aliens ordered deported by taken into custody pending deportation. Finally, it gives Federal judges the ability to order deportation of a criminal alien at the time of sentencing. To be sure, during the floor debate on this bill, many colleagues have expressed sharp differences in how they wish to go about reforming our immigration laws. However, it is my hope that all Senators would agree that deporting and excluding aliens convicted of committing serious crimes ought to be a top priority. Because fixing existing laws to accomplish this goal ought to be an equally high priority, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Asylum Amendment

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I agree that there appears to be a significant loophole in the current law that should be closed regarding user fee airports. We need to ensure that the advantages of the user-fee program benefit the small airports it is designed to help and not give an unfair and unintended advantage to big airports that remain in the program. Therefore, I think we need to find a way to discourage user fee airports that have a substantial increase in the number of international passengers from remaining in the user-fee program and to encourage their designation as a port of entry, which is appropriate for larger airports. Otherwise, a user fee airport could receive an unfair competitive advantage over port-of-entry airports merely by avoiding the $6.50 passenger processing fee on airline tickets, as the Senator from Maine has pointed out.

Mr. ROTH. I am sensitive to the imminent problems facing Bangor International Airport as a result of the loophole in the user-fee airport program. I assure you that I will provide whatever help I can to ensure that the customs laws provide a level playing field for all airports that receive significant numbers of international passengers. tongass land management plan

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, there are few things more disappointing and disturbing than broken promises. Despite repeated assurances from Russian officials that they sincerely desire to fully abide by the principals of free and fair trade, they are once again considering barriers against the import of agricultural products. I have to add that there are few things more worrisome than to have our President visit Russia and tell us everything is OK when it is not. And this appears to be the case when it comes to United States-Russian trade relations. Yesterday, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Zaveryukha announced his Government's plans to introduce food import quotas that will focus primarily on poultry purchases, the vast majority of which come from the United States. The Deputy Prime Minister himself even emphasized that it is American poultry products against which these import quotas are directed. This is particularly outrageous in light of Russian Prime Minister's Chernomyrdin's assurances to Vice President Gore that Moscow was going to back away from unfair trade practices that the Prime Minister announced last February against agricultural imports into Russia. Russia's new effort to restrict the import of American poultry products should not surprise us. For the last 6 months Moscow has persistently been trying to ban the import of American poultry products. First, they tried to impose a bogus health ban. When it became clear that could not fly, they have been trying to increase tariffs against our poultry products. Now, they are talking about import quotas. A decision by Moscow to impose import quotas, higher tariffs, or any other sanctions against American agricultural products would be most unfortunate. This is particularly true in the case of poultry. The amazing growth of in our chicken sales in Russia over the past 5 years demonstrates that Russian consumers recognize the quality and reasonable price of United States poultry. Needless to say, import quotas will only end up hurting United States poultry producers, Russian consumers, and the United States-Russian trade relationship. I want to emphasize that this issue has repercussions that go well beyond poultry. Indeed, agricultural import quotas are very much part of a broad turn toward protectionism in Russian economy policy. This trend toward protectionism is particularly disturbing when seen in the light of overall United States-Russian Trade and United States foreign assistance programs to Russia. Today, the United States is running a trade deficit with Russia that amounts to over $2 billion annually. Import quotas against poultry and other agricultural imports will only further restrict access to the Russian market by our most competitive exports and will further widen our trade deficit with Russia. This is particularly outrageous when one considers that since 1992 the United States has provided some $2.44 billion in foreign assistance to Russia. Much of this assistance is designed to help Russia develop a fully functioning free market economy. The American people would be well justified in questioning such assistance to countries that close their markets to U.S. exports. Should Russia actually decide to impose trade quotas against American exports, it is essential that United States Government respond with forceful and immediate measures. How we respond to protectionist policies by Moscow will be closely watched by other beneficiaries of American foreign assistance, particularly those among the former Republics of the Soviet Union. Thus, Russia's increasing protectionism and our response to it must be viewed through the lens not only of trade, but also the broader dimensions of United States relations with Russia, Central and Eastern Europe, and the world. Mr. President, I am convinced that we must send a strong message to Russia that we will not tolerate such blatant protectionism. Any less of a response will only send the wrong signal to Moscow and other nations that protectionism is a legitimate policy tool that they can use with impunity. The Russian Government must understand that free trade is a two-way street. If they want to benefit from our foreign assistance, sell their products and services to us, expand their economy, and become a full participant in the global market place, then they are going to have to let us sell our products and services to them. If they insist on erecting protectionist trade barriers, such as the import quotas, then they must fully understand that there will be a heavy price to pay. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Can I have 15?

Mr. ROTH. I ask whether, because we agreed to a very brief time, whether at least on our side we could have another 10 minutes, total of 15 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. I am sorry, I did not hear.

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, in his editorial, Dr. Friedman recognizes medical savings accounts can be an important factor in restoring the freedom of choice for both the patient and physician and to control health care costs. These important provisions in the leadership amendment are not all that we are offering. Our amendment also permits penalty-free withdrawals from IRA's for health and long-term care insurance. The leadership amendment encourages people to purchase health insurance by allowing penalty-free withdrawals from IRA accounts to buy health and long-term care insurance and to pay for major medical expenses. This provision will allow unemployed workers the ability to access their IRA funds to continue their health insurance for their families. The leadership amendment provides tax exemptions to State-sponsored, high-risk insurance pools, a provision that will encourage States to set up insurance pools from which high health risk individuals can purchase affordable insurance. Madam President, the leadership amendment also contains new tools for law enforcement to aggressively attack fraud and abuse in health care. GAO estimates that as much as 10 percent of health spending in the United States is lost to fraud and abuse. Law enforcement officials believe that most health care fraud goes undetected. The leadership amendment makes substantial new funds available to the Justice Department, the FBI and the IG of the Department of Health and Human Services for investigation and prosecution of health care fraud. These provisions also create for the first time a criminal statute for health care crimes, tough new penalties for fraud in Federal health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Madam President, these health care fraud and abuse provisions were crafted by Senator Cohen over the past 3 years. I commend him and his staff on their tireless and important work. Madam President, the leadership amendment is actually paid for. The offsets are, first, large corporations will no longer be permitted to borrow corporate- owned life insurance and deduct the interest. The provision is a major corporate tax loophole that will be closed. The same proposal was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 and is similar to the administration's proposal in its fiscal year 1997 budget. Second, expatriates, those persons who leave the United States for tax avoidance purposes, will be subject to taxation upon exit from the United States. The proposal is similar to the expatriation provision in the Senate version of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. Third, starting in 1996, thrift institutions will calculate their tax deduction for bad debts the same way as banks. This provision will facilitate future legislation to harmonize the bank and thrift charters, and has widespread support. A similar proposal was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 as well as an administration revenue proposal in the fiscal year 1997 budget. Fourth, a measure to combat fraud and the earned-income credit program. This proposal is identical to the earned-income credit compliance provisions in the House health care bill. Mr. President, I recognize that there are many other popular tax proposals championed by other Members that would likely find their way into this bill. However, this is a health insurance reform bill. The focus of this and other amendments should be on expanding the affordability of health and long-term care insurance for Americans. To stray from the purpose of this amendment may doom the entire health insurance reform effort. I suggest that no Senator wants to do that.

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, the purpose of the leadership amendment to the Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance reform bill is to help individuals and employers purchase affordable health and long-term care insurance, and it will particularly help small business men and women go a long way toward combating fraud and abuse in the Medicare system. Affordability of health and long-term care insurance has long been a major problem in our country, and the leadership amendment provides concrete solutions. By eliminating many of the financial barriers to affordable health and long-term care insurance, Americans will take greater responsibility for their health and long-term care needs, relying less on the Federal Government. The leadership amendment provides affordable health and long-term care insurance and personal responsibility by increasing the health insurance deduction for self-employed individuals to 80 percent. On average, employers pay about 80 percent of their employees health insurance costs. But under current law, employers can exclude this benefit tax. In comparison, Madam President, under current law, self-employed individuals can only deduct 30 percent of their health insurance. Raising the health insurance deduction for self-employed individuals will eliminate this inequity and will be a good first step toward putting self-employed individuals on a par with workers who receive health insurance from their employer. But this is not all this amendment provides. It provides tax clarification for long-term care insurance. Under this amendment, long- term care insurance that meets certain consumer standards will receive the same favorable tax treatment as medical insurance. The consumer standards require insurance companies to disclose information to consumers that will aid them in buying a long-term care policy that best fits their individual needs. Long-term care insurance tax clarification will provide the much needed incentive for Americans to buy this insurance. All too often individuals without long-term care insurance end up depleting their life savings for their care and end up on Medicaid. Long-term care insurance will give Americans with long-term care needs the dignity of providing their own care and at the same time reducing the burden on Medicaid. Additionally, Madam President, this amendment allows tax-free benefits from the early termination of life insurance. It permits terminally and chronically ill individuals to take tax-free withdrawals from their life insurance. Many terminally and chronically ill individuals end up depleting their life savings for their care and end up on Medicaid. This provision will provide an additional source of funds for the terminally and chronically ill to attend to their health care needs and at the same time will reduce the burden on Medicaid for their care. This amendment also includes tax-favored medical savings accounts. Our medical savings account proposal permits an individual with a high- deductible health plan to make tax-deductible contributions to an MSA. Contributions to the medical savings account are limited to $2,000 for single coverage and $4,000 for family coverage. Distribution from the medical savings account can be used for medical expenses without being taxed. Excess funds in a medical savings account can be carried over to the next year, would be available to pay for unexpectedly high health costs, long-term care insurance, or to continue health insurance during periods of unemployment, often called COBRA coverage. Madam President, among the great freedoms that Americans cherish is the ability to make choices and decisions about how to take care of their families. Medical savings accounts will place control of America's health care back in the family. It does so in significant ways that create the right incentives for health care. With the medical savings accounts, Americans will be able to choose their physician, their hospital, and their health care plan. Not only will Americans be allowed to go to the doctor of their choice, but to the optometrist, the dentist, or the chiropractor of their choice as well. Traditional low-deductible health insurance may not cover visits to the dentist or optometrist, but the medical savings accounts will. In addition, Madam President, many traditional low-deductible health insurance plans do not pay for preventive care. For working poor Americans, this feature of medical health savings accounts will be especially helpful. That is because Americans with medical savings accounts will have the money to pay for preventive care for their families, whereas they may not have the money in the absence of a medical savings account. Beyond offering patients a choice, medical savings accounts will lower health care spending by empowering people to become knowledgeable about health care costs. As a result, medical savings account users become more effective consumers of health care and reject unnecessary or duplicative treatment. Unused medical savings account funds will accumulate from year to year, providing an incentive for people to remain healthy and consume medical care wisely. In addition, Madam President, medical savings accounts will also restore the physician-patient relationship, something that has eroded over time. Patients are finding their choice of health care providers being limited and bureaucracies are interfering with their doctor- patient relationships. With medical savings accounts, a patient can go to any doctor, nurse, or other health care provider of their choice without worrying about whether their insurance will cover the bill. Madam President, we already know about the success of medical savings accounts because hundreds of companies, including the United Mine Workers, are experimenting with them with great success. Companies that offer medical savings accounts have experienced significant reductions in health care spending by their employees. Most of these companies find that medical savings accounts are attractive to workers in both low- and high-income categories and workers in all health conditions. In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation anticipates that about 78 percent of medical savings account users will have an annual income of less than $75,000. Madam President, the problem with current medical savings accounts is that employees are treated worse under the tax laws by selecting a medical savings account and high-deductible health plan. At the end of each year the employee must include the full amount of the money deposited in his or her medical savings account as income. That is a grossly unfair result when employees with traditional low-deductible insurance do not pay tax on their employer provided insurance. Furthermore, medical savings accounts advance an important goal of Senator Kassebaum's health insurance reform bill, and that is health insurance portability. Health insurance portability is something Americans have been requesting for years. The lack of health insurance portability is a problem with the current health insurance market and results in job lock for millions of Americans. Medical savings accounts will help end job lock for millions of American workers because they will be able to take their medical savings account with them when they change jobs. This would promote continuity of insurance coverage. Another feature of a medical savings account is that it will allow a lower cost insurance alternative to millions of self-employed Americans. American farmers and small businesses will be able to buy high-deductible health insurance and fund a medical savings account to provide for their family's health care needs. This feature has the potential of removing millions of people from the ranks of the uninsured. Madam President, it is interesting to note that 13 States and at least one city have passed medical savings account legislation and dozens more are moving to pass similar legislation. For example, Jersey City, NJ, has implemented medical savings accounts as an alternative for their city employees. Ohio is implementing a test program for State employees. Clearly, medical savings accounts offer Americans a choice about their health care that should be fundamental in a country built on free-market principles. It is the Federal Government that must now move ahead with the idea. Madam President, strong efforts have been made to defeat medical savings account legislation by those who have a vested interest in the current health care system that is not working for millions of Americans. The real winners under medical savings accounts will be the hundreds of thousands of Americans who will grab control over their family's health care spending. I hope the encouragement from hundreds of companies with successful medical savings account programs and the many States that are pioneering in medical savings accounts will serve as strong incentives for my fellow colleagues to join me in supporting the medical savings account provisions and the leadership amendment. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have an editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman entitled ``A Way Out of Soviet-Style Health Care'' printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending legislation. Labor and Human Resources Committee Chairman Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy deserve to be commended for there efforts in crafting the bill before the Senate which assures that workers who intend to change jobs will no longer experience the fear of losing their health care coverage. Not only have Senator Kassebaum, other members of her committee, and their staffs labored many long hours to draft the bill, they have also successfully built a strong coalition of support. Thanks to Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy this bill is supported by big business, small business, a wide array of advocacy groups, many insurance companies, and many Americans. While I do think the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill could be improved, I think it is a critical step forward. At a later time, I will join the majority leader in offering an amendment which makes health insurance more affordable. The Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance reform bill has an important focus. The bill will assist people who want and need to make necessary and correct decisions about their health care needs--people who work, people who join their group health care plans and have paid their premiums continuously for no less than 12 months. The bill eliminates ``job-lock'' for workers who fear they will lose their health coverage when they change jobs, and the bill eliminates the fear of losing coverage for individuals who have maintained their group coverage and have a preexisting condition. Recently my office was contacted by a lady who has always been insured and paid her premiums. Yet she finds herself today in a situation where she is unable to obtain health care coverage because of a preexisting condition. Nancy Miller is 56 years old, after a divorce from a 27-year marriage, she was allowed access to continued group health coverage through her former spouse's employer plan at the group premium rate for 3 years. Mrs. Miller's 36 month COBRA coverage expires at the end of May. To make sure she will not have a gap in health coverage, Mrs. Miller has worked with her current insurer, called many other insurers, contacted our office, worked with an insurance broker and yet she has been rejected from every health plan she has applied to. Mrs. Miller has a preexisting condition. She can not get health care coverage because she contracted breast cancer 2 years ago. Mrs. Miller's situation could apply to anyone, because anyone could get sick. Mrs. Miller has not gamed the system seeking insurance only when she needed it. For years she was healthy, and for her entire life she has been insured. The letter Mrs. Miller's insurance broker recently wrote her could be a letter received by many women. The following is the letter she received from her broker: This letter is to inform you that we have contacted all of our standard individual health insurance carriers and are unable to find one that is capable of writing a policy for you because of your pre-existing condition. We have been advised by all of the carriers that they will not consider you for insurance until you are 5 years out from your time of release from the doctor. The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill will provide assurances to responsible Americans. In particular, the bill provides portability in two settings: When individuals change from one group health plan to another group health plan (group to group), and when individuals leave their group health plan and seek coverage as an individual policyholder in the market (group to individual). For group to group portability, the bill establishes uniform Federal standards for insurers, health maintenance organizations [HMO's], and employers who self-fund their health plan. There is a broad consensus that these measures should be enacted, and a very broad coalition of business as well as the insurance industry and advocacy groups support these provisions. There is a need to establish uniform Federal standards for the group to group portability measures as the bulk of employer sponsored health coverage is self-funded and exempt from State regulation. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA], the Federal Government regulates private self-funded employer plans. ERISA prohibits States from regulating employer sponsored self-insured plans. Therefore, States cannot achieve all the reforms needed to assure portability when workers change jobs because the Federal ERISA law prohibits States from regulating any group health plan which is self-funded. For those individuals leaving their group health care coverage and seeking coverage in the individual market, the bill provides access to coverage to individuals. The bill also provides States with important flexibility to meet the goals of this section of the bill. While there have been concerns raised regarding the bill's provision to guarantee that insurers make health coverage available to individuals, I think this section is important if we are to truly guarantee portability and access to coverage. States currently regulate insurance provided to individuals who are not in a group plan. The Federal role in this area of the marketplace has been minimal; therefore I agree with the bill's goal to retain a strong state role in the individual market. This section of the bill provides the needed flexibility for States to be creative. It's important to note that the bill builds on responsible behavior because it requires that individuals have previous continued group health care coverage in order to qualify for the portability provisions. This is the case with Mrs. Miller who responsibly maintained her group coverage. The pending bill provides that health plans can not impose preexisting condition limits on individuals who had prior group coverage. In fact no preexisting condition limits can be imposed on individuals who join a group health plan if they had continuous group health coverage for the previous 12 months. For individuals leaving a group plan, they must have had 18 months of continuous coverage in order to qualify for an individual policy without any preexisting condition limits. In either case, if individuals have less than the required months of coverage, their new plan would have to credit them for the time that they were covered. Most Americans with private health insurance receive their coverage through their employers, and the majority of the uninsured are also tied to the workplace. The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill will strengthen the employer-based health care system we now have, and it will help responsible Americans like Mrs. Miller retain their coverage. In fact, the General Accounting Office estimates that as many as 21 to 25 million people per year could be affected by Federal portability standards in all markets. This is a good first step.

Mr. ROTH. Before we conclude action on the measure before us, I want to specially commend the Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, for his invaluable contribution to this effort. His introduction of S. 1658, the Family Choice in Long-Term Care Act, along with his behind- the-scenes advocacy on this issue, has made the difference in getting long-term care on the must-do list of health care reforms. Senator McConnell has shown tremendous concern for the long-term care needs of elderly Americans and their families, and he has played a key role in proposing common sense and compassionate solutions to the problem. We all know how some people just talk about an issue; the junior Senator from Kentucky works issues, and the legislation before us reflects the work that Senator McConnell has devoted to this crucial health care concern.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 10 minutes of the leader's time to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 4 minutes to Senator Faircloth.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Texas.