William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment to raise the debt ceiling on this occasion. Without a doubt, the debt ceiling will eventually be raised as it needs to be and as it should be in order to avoid default. The problem with addressing the debt ceiling issue at this point is that there is some urgency in our need to enact the continuing resolution. To keep Government from shutting down, this resolution must be enacted today and it must be clean. This CR has already been negotiated with the House, the Senate, and the White House. The President has said that he will sign this bill tonight. This is critically important to maintain uninterrupted Government services for the American people. To open the CR now for amendment is to create an obstacle that will most certainly keep this bill from passing and result in a Government shutdown. We must reach closure today. We will address the debt ceiling. Secretary Rubin has asked us to do so before March 1. That's over a month away. Consequently, there is no urgency to extend the debt limit now--not if it means once again shutting down the Government. The Finance Committee is currently in discussions with Treasury regarding various aspects of this issue. And we will move forward with the debt ceiling issue when the moment serves. But not now. The amendment violates the Constitution. Revenue bills must arise in the House, and that includes legislation affecting the debt ceiling. If we adopt this amendment, the House will blue slip the legislation, and we will be further behind than if we pass this CR and address the debt at a more appropriate time. It is customary for Congress to consider debt ceiling legislation together with provisions to reduce the deficit. The House is in the process of fashioning such a package. The Speaker has talked with the President. Leon Panetta has indicated the administration is willing to work on such a package. This amendment derails that effort. It is clear, then, that this amendment, even if it were legal, would not be well received in the House. Rather than achieve gridlock once again with the Moynihan amendment, we need to send this continuing resolution to the President. Mr. President, again, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment to raise the debt ceiling on this occasion.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROTH. I say to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, that is exactly what we are doing. We are acting in a responsible way today; we are taking action that will ensure that the Government can continue to function, which I know is of primary interest to our distinguished Senator from Virginia. That is the reason we do not want it to be amended further. That would only delay the process and bring about the shutdown that I think no one wants. As a second step, we are working already, together with the House, with the administration. I was in contact yesterday with the Secretary of the Treasury. We are proceeding to do something about the debt ceiling because I, like Senator Warner, want full faith from the President. So we are working to provide the type of legislation that meets everybody's requirements and can be enacted by the Congress.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I yield 2 more minutes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use. Mr. President, 3 months ago the Senate passed H.R. 4 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 87 to 12. Republicans and Democrats worked together on the floor of the Senate to forge an agreement to deliver a comprehensive, bipartisan welfare reform package which has been promised for so long. In a few minutes we will vote on a final conference report on H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1995. There has been a great deal of misinformation about this conference report, as President Clinton has issued his unfortunate veto threat against this legislation. Instead of ending welfare as we know it, it seems he prefers to continue business as usual. Let me say to each of the 87 Members who voted for authentic welfare reform last September, you should not hesitate to vote for this conference agreement. Overall, you will find H.R. 4 remains true to the goals we share and to the most important agreements we made. Members know that from the early days of his administration, the President has outlined principles for welfare reform. H.R. 4 meets these principles. I invite Members to go back through the record of this past year. You will find there were substantial differences between the House and Senate versions of welfare reform. Those who examine the conference report in all its details will surely agree it more closely reflects the Senate positions on the major issues at stake. We have, in fact, added more money for the block grants for temporary assistance for needy families. We have, in fact, increased funding for child care. We have retained the Senate position on requiring the States' maintenance of effort. We rejected House provisions which would have converted SSI assistance to children into a block grant. We have improved child support enforcement provisions. We have preserved the current law entitlements to foster care and adoption assistance maintenance payments. We are keeping our commitment to children in the foster care system. Contrary to some disinformation, they will continue to be eligible for Medicaid coverage. So I hope all Members will objectively examine the conference report and compare it to the House and Senate version passed earlier this year. But more important, I invite Members to open their minds to what the States are doing when they get the opportunity to design modifications to the current welfare system. Look at what is being done in Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin, Delaware, Virginia, and Iowa when the States are allowed at least some measure of control over the welfare system. For a reassuring glimpse of the future, I recommend an article by Massachusetts Gov. William Weld entitled, ``Release Us From Federal Nonsense,'' which appeared in the Wall Street Journal last week. As for me, I have greater confidence in the Governor and State legislature in Delaware than I do in the careerists in the Hubert Humphrey building. We know why the number of people in poverty has continued to increase despite the best efforts and intentions. But after 30 years of failed experimentation, it is clear the Washington bureaucracy cannot tell us how to break the vicious cycle of dependency. Complex human behavior cannot be reduced to a mathematical diagram. We have not found the wisdom of Solomon in the Federal Register. President Clinton has stated he will veto H.R. 4. Last night, a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stated that we should wait for a bipartisan bill. Mr. President, we have a bipartisan bill. The Senate bill passed 87 to 12. President Clinton promised welfare reform 34 months ago. Today, we are delivering welfare reform to the American people. There is no need to wait any longer. Welfare reform is here. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished junior Senator from Kansas.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.

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

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my distinguished colleague from North Carolina.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 2 additional minutes.

Mr. ROTH. I am sorry, just 5.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. ROTH. That is correct. That is my understanding.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, sometime ago the American people reached a turning point concerning welfare reform. They understand that despite having spent over $5 trillion over the past 30 years, the welfare system is a catastrophic failure. In 1965, 15.6 percent of all families with children under the age of 18 had incomes below the poverty level. And in 1993, 18.5 percent of families with children under the age of 18 were under the Federal poverty level. The system created to end poverty has helped to bring more poverty. By destroying the work ethic and undermining the formation of family, the welfare system has lured more Americans into a cruel cycle of dependency. The size and cost of the welfare programs are at historically high levels and are out of control. Federal, State, and local governments now spend over $350 billion on means-tested programs. Between 1965 and 1992, the number of children receiving AFDC has grown by nearly 200 percent. Yet, the entire population of children under the age of 18 has declined--declined by 5.5 percent over this same period. More than 1.5 million children have been added to the AFDC caseload since 1990. And if we do nothing, if we do nothing to reform it, the number of children receiving AFDC is expected to grow from 9.6 million today to 12 million within 10 years. That is what the future holds if the current system is allowed to continue. A welfare system run by Washington simply costs too much and produces too little in terms of results. Twenty years ago, 4.3 million people received food stamp benefits. In 1994, that number had grown to 27.5 million people, an increase of more than 500 percent. And between 1990 and 1994 alone, the number of people receiving food stamps grew by nearly 7.5 million people. In 1974, the Supplemental Security Income Program was established to replace former programs serving low-income elderly and disabled persons. SSI was considered to be a type of retirement program for people who had not been able to contribute enough for Social Security benefits. Of the 3.9 million recipients in 1974, 2.3 million were elderly adults. The number of elderly adults has actually declined by 36 percent. But consider this: In 1982, noncitizens constituted 3 percent of all SSI recipients. By 1993, noncitizens constituted nearly 12 percent of the entire SSI caseload. Today, almost 1 out of every four elderly SSI recipients is a noncitizen. Before 1990, the growth in the number of disabled children receiving SSI was moderate, averaging 3 percent annually since 1984. Then, in the beginning of 1990, and through 1994, the growth averaged 25 percent annually and the number trimmed to nearly 900,000 children. The number of disabled children receiving cash assistance under the Supplemental Security Income Program has increased by 166 percent since 1990 alone. The maximum SSI benefit is greater than the maximum AFDC benefit for a family of three in 40 States. Welfare reform is necessary today because while the rest of the Nation has gone through a series of social transformations, the Federal bureaucracy has been left behind, still searching in vain for the solution to the problems of poverty. It simply will not be found in Washington. Our colleague, Senator Moynihan, has reminded us on a number of occasions that the AFDC Program began 60 years ago as a sort of widow's pension. Consider that the AFDC Program cost $697 million in 1947 measured in constant 1995 dollars. In 1995, the Federal Government spent $18 billion on the AFDC population, an increase of 2,500 percent measured in constant dollars. Now, the AFDC Program was originally intended to be a modest means to keep a family together in dignity. But much has changed since then and the system has become a cruel hoax on our young people. It has torn families apart and left them without the dignity of work. Washington does not know how to build strong families because it has forgotten what makes families strong. It has failed to understand the consequences of idleness and illegitimacy. Last March, the House of Representatives charted an ambitious course for welfare reform in the 104th Congress. H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995, was a bold challenge to all of us. It was a creative and comprehensive response to the many problems we currently face in the complex welfare system. Since then, the Senate has continued the national debate and built on the blueprint provided by the House. Just 3 months ago, the Senate demonstrated that it recognized dramatic and sweeping reforms are necessary. The Work Opportunity Act passed the Senate with an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 87 to 12. Today, I am here to present to the Senate and to the American people H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1995. H.R. 4 ends the individual entitlement to Federal cash assistance under the current AFDC Program. It also caps the total amount of Federal funding over the next 7 years. These are the critical pieces of welfare reform which will institute dramatic changes the American people want. These two provisions are the key to everything else which will transpire in the States. They make all other reforms possible. They guarantee the national debate about work and family will be repeated in every statehouse. Fiscal discipline will force the State to set priorities. Block grants will provide them with the flexibility needed to design their own system to break the cycle of dependency. And most importantly, this legislation restores the work ethic and reinforces the value of the family as the fundamental cell of our society. Mr. President, after decades of research and rhetoric, it is indeed time to end welfare as we know it. This welfare reform initiative is built on three basic platforms and contains all the necessary requirements of authentic welfare reform. First, individuals must take responsibility for their lives and actions. The present welfare system has sapped the spirit of so many Americans because it rewards dependency. It has also allowed absent parents to flee their moral and legal obligations to their children. This legislation ends the individual entitlement to public assistance and provides for a stronger child support enforcement mechanism. Second, it restores the expectation that people who can help themselves must help themselves. For far too long, welfare has been more attractive than work. This legislation corrects the mistakes of the past which allowed people to avoid work. We provide additional funding for child care and incorporate educational and training activities to help individuals make the transition from welfare to work. Under this legislation, welfare recipients will know that welfare will truly be only a temporary means of support and must prepare themselves accordingly. Finally, this legislation transfers power from Washington back to the States where it belongs. This will yield great dividends to recipients and taxpayers alike. As the power is drained from Washington, Americans should eagerly anticipate the reciprocal actions that take place in the States. States will find more innovative ways to use this money to help families than Washington ever imagined. Freed from the current adversarial system, the States will be able to design their own unique methods to help families overcome adversity. The current system insults the dignity of individuals by demanding a person prove and maintain destitution. States will reverse this disordered thinking and raise expectations by shifting the emphasis from what a person cannot do to what a person can do. On balance, you will find that the conference reflects the work of the Senate on the major issues within the Finance Committee jurisdiction. And as you examine the individual parts and the bill as a whole, I believe you will find we have been responsive to the concerns of the Senate. The conference report provides the right mixture of flexibility to the States but still retains appropriate accountability. And I think the States will find this transfer of power to be a reasonable challenge. Here are the major specific items included in title I which creates the new block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families with minor children. Each State is entitled to receive its allocation of a national cash welfare block grant which is set at $16.3 billion each year, and in return the States are required to spend at least 75 percent of the amount they spent on cash welfare programs in 1994 over the next 5 years. In terms of funding, the States will be allowed to choose the greater of their average for the years 1992 to 1994 or their 1994 level of funding or their 1995 level of funding. By allowing the States to use their 1995 funding level, we have increased Federal spending for the block grant by $3.5 billion over the Senate-passed bill. We have maintained the $1 billion contingency fund. The States will be required to meet tough but reasonable work requirements. In 1997, the work participation rate will be 20 percent. This percentage will increase by 5 percentage points each year. By the year 2002, half of the State total welfare caseload must be engaged in work activities. As provided by the Senate bill, States will be required to enforce ``pay for performance.'' If a recipient refuses to work, a pro rata reduction in benefits will be made. We provide the resources to make this possible with $11 billion in mandatory child care funds for welfare families. Let me repeat. The conference report includes $1 billion more for child care than the Senate welfare bill. Another $7 billion in discretionary funds are provided to assist low- income working families. There will be a single block grant administered through the child care and development block grant, but guaranteed funding for the welfare population. The House has agreed to accept the Senate definition of work activities to include vocational training. The House has agreed to drop its mandatory prohibition on cash assistance to teenage mothers. As under the Senate bill, this will be an option for the States to determine. The House has accepted the Senate authorization for the creation of second chance homes for unmarried young mothers. The family cap provision has been modified from both positions. Under the new proposal, States will not be permitted to increase Federal benefits for additional children born while a family is on welfare. However, each State will be allowed to opt out of this Federal prohibition by passing State legislation. The sweeping reforms in child support enforcement has unfortunately been overlooked in the public debate. This has been an important area of bipartisan action and an important method of assisting families to avoid and escape from poverty. We are strengthening the enforcement mechanism in several ways. In general, the conference report more closely reflects the Senate bill. We reconciled several of the differences between the House and Senate on items such as the Director of New Hires and the expansion of the Federal Parent Locator Service simply by choosing a midpoint. We have increased funding over the Senate bill for the continued development costs of automation from $260 to $400 million. One particular child support enforcement issue which may be of interest to you is the distribution of child support arrears. Beginning October 1, 1997, all post-assistance arrears will be distributed to the family before the State. As of October 1, 2000, all preassistance arrears will go to the family before the State will be allowed to recoup its costs. We believe that improving child support collection will greatly assist families in avoiding and escaping poverty. The American Bar Association strongly supports our child support enforcement changes. The ABA recently wrote that, ``if these child support reforms are enacted, it will be an historic stride forward for children in our nation.'' Mr. President, we cannot afford to miss this historic opportunity. SSI is now the largest cash assistance program for the poor and one of the fastest growing entitlement programs. Program costs have grown 20 percent annually in the past 4 years. Last year, over 6 million SSI recipients received nearly $22 billion in Federal benefits and over $3 billion in State benefits. The maximum SSI benefit is greater than the maximum AFDC benefit for a family of 3 in 40 States. The conference agreement contains the bipartisan changes in the definition of childhood disability contained in the Senate-passed welfare reform bill. I am pleased we have addressed this problem on common ground. The conference rejected the House block grant approach. All eligible children will continue to receive cash assistance. We retain our commitment to serving the disabled while linking assistance to need. For children who become eligible in the future, there will be a two- tier system of benefits. All children will receive cash benefits. Those disabled children requiring special personal assistance to remain at home will receive a full cash benefit. For families where the need is not as great, such children will receive 75 percent of the full benefit. No changes in children's benefits for SSI will take place before January 1, 1997. This will allow for an orderly implementation and protect the interests of current recipients. These changes will restore the public's confidence in this program and maintain our national commitment to children with disabilities. Current resident noncitizens receiving benefits on the date of enactment may continue to receive SSI, food stamps, AFDC, Medicaid, or title XX services until January 1, 1997. After January 1, 1997, current resident noncitizens may not receive food stamps or SSI unless they have worked long enough to qualify for Social Security. States will have the option of restricting AFDC, Medicaid, and title XX benefits. Legal noncitizens arriving after the date of enactment are barred from receiving most Federal means-tested benefits during their first 5 years in the United States. SSI and food stamps will remain restricted until citizenship or until the person has worked long enough to qualify for Social Security. The States have the option to restrict AFDC, Medicaid, and title XX benefits after 5 years. Mr. President, it is time to correct the fundamental mistakes made by the welfare system over the past three decades. All too often, the system simply assumes that if a person lacks money, he or she also lacks any means of earning it. The present welfare system locks families into permanent dependency when they only needed a temporary hand up. It creates poverty and dependence by destroying families and initiative. To end welfare as we know it, we must put an end to the system which has done so much to trap families into dependence. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1995 will accomplish precisely these goals. From the early days of his administration, President Clinton promised welfare reform to the American people. H.R. 4 meets all principles he has outlined for welfare reform. If the President vetoes H.R. 4, he will be preserving a system which costs and wastes billions of taxpayers' dollars. More importantly, however, if the President vetoes H.R. 4, he will be accepting the status quo in which another 2\1/2\ million children will fall into the welfare system. On January 24, 1995, President Clinton declared at a joint session of Congress, ``Nothing has done more to undermine our sense of common responsibility than our failed welfare system.'' Mr. President, vetoing welfare reform will seriously undermine the American people's confidence in our political system. The American people know the present welfare system is a failure. They are also tired of empty rhetoric from politicians. Words without deeds are meaningless. The time to enact welfare reform is now. Mr. President, I yield back the floor. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the Office of Operational Test and Evaluation [OT & E] in the Office of the Secretary of Defense was established and strengthened by Congress in the early 1980's to ensure that weapons we provide our troops have been vigorously tested in an independent and realistic manner. The statutes behind this Office were one of the most important achievements of Congress' effort to reform the defense acquisition process. It is legislation that continues to save the tax-payers billions of dollars. Most importantly, these statutes continue to protect the lives of our men and women in uniform. It is, thus, surprising that the Defense authorization conference report would repeal these public laws that Congress passed with strong bipartisan support. Provisions in H.R. 1530 will repeal section 139 of title 10 that established and provides independent authority to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. Two weeks ago I, along with Senator David Pryor and Senator Charles Grassley, urged the conferees to remove these damaging provisions. We reminded our colleagues that last August this very chamber unanimously passed a resolution stating that the authorities and office of OT&E must be preserved. I am disappointed that the conferees appear to have disregarded our advice and, more importantly, the unanimous opinion of the Senate. What is at stake in the Defense authorization bill are the lives of our men and women in uniform. And, there is no one more concerned than I about the well-being of our troops. The Office of Operational Test and Evaluation was created specifically to ensure the safety of our troops. Section 139, the statute that the conference bill repeals, gives our troops confidence that the weapons they bring to the battlefield have been tested vigorously in an independent manner and in an operationally realistic environment. Over more than a decade of service, OT&E has ensured that the new weapons with which we equip our soldiers can be relied upon in combat. That is how OT&E saves lives. OT&E also saves the taxpayer billions of dollars. Its establishment institutionalized a very simple premise: That we should not spend billions of dollars on a new weapon unless we are sure that it works and will be effective on the battlefield. OT&E is the institutional core of the Pentagon's fly before you buy approach to new weapons and equipment. OT&E saves both lives and money because section 139 requires that the testing and evaluation of new weapons are directed by an official whose authorities are independent from the services and whose authorities are not vulnerable to pressures of the Pentagon's procurement bureaucracy. Some of us may recall the cancellation of the Sergeant York--DIVAD-- antiaircraft system. The problems of this faulty program were identified and highlighted by OT&E. The DIVAD was a billion dollar boondoggle which was terminated by OT&E's independent tests and evaluations despite protests from within the Pentagon. One can imagine what the risks would have been to our soldiers had this system been deployed. Another example of OT&E saving lives is the performance of the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle during the war against Iraq. The Bradley had never seen combat until Operation Desert Storm. The mission of the Bradley is to deliver troops safety to combat. Independent operational testing conducted by OT&E demonstrated that the Bradley's original design seriously jeopardized the lives of the troops it was meant to protect. Over the Army's objections, the Bradley's production schedule was extended so that design flaws were remedied. In one of the many studies conducted after Operation Desert Storm, Army Maj. Gen. Peter McVey testified on the performance of the Bradley. He stated that ``more lives of soldiers than we can count'' were saved by the combat-like testing to which the Bradley was subjected prior to its full production and deployment to the gulf. Former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reiterated this conclusion when he stated that the vigorous independent testing oversight put into place by Congress saved more lives than perhaps any other single initiative. In addition to the Bradley and the Sergeant York, OT&E has contributed significantly to performance, capability and reliability of the equipment and weapons systems our Defense authorization and appropriations bill purchase for our taxpayers and, above all, of our soldiers. These include improvements to the C-17 cargo plane, the Aegis Cruiser, and there are numerous other examples. In each case OT&E ensured that each of these systems were subjected to vigorous independent testing. Their evaluations contributed to design changes that improved their capabilities and reliability. In other cases, wasteful programs were terminated. In this way, the legislation that established the office and authorities of the Director of OT&E simultaneously improved the safety of our soldiers and saved the taxpayer money. That alone makes section 139 of title 10 one of the most important achievements in acquisition reform of the last decade. We should be protecting, if not strengthening, such statutes. What would be the bottom line if we repeal section 139? In the name of reducing the size of the Pentagon, we will have eliminated a tiny office whose work has proven essential to the very objectives of H.R. 1530, providing a rational, accountable, and efficient system of management in the Pentagon. To eliminate this office as we are sending our troops to Bosnia seems to be all the more incredulous. These troops, many of whom are embarking through Dover Air Force Base in my State of Delaware, will be deploying with an array of new equipment that has never been tested in combat. Can we imagine sending our troops to battle with equipment we have not made the fullest effort to subject to operationally realistic testing? If we are really concerned about our troops, we should be vehemently opposed to the provisions that would eliminate the independence and authorities of the Office of Operational Test and Evaluation. We cannot accept these provisions and claim that we are doing our utmost to ensure the safety and welfare of our men and women in uniform.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, according to a familiar advertisement in the Nation's Capital, ``If you don't get it, you don't get it.'' Anyone who read the December 12 editorial in the Washington Post entitled ``Budget Sticking Point,'' now gets it and understands there is, indeed, a historic struggle being waged over Medicaid. Over the past several months, the local liberal spin on the Republican proposals on welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare, has been that we were not really interested in reforming these programs. According to the critics, the Republicans were only hunting for budget savings without regard to sound public policy. And to its credit, the Post realizes this is empty campaign rhetoric and there is, indeed, much more at stake. But while the Post concludes the Federal mandates in Medicaid must be preserved, Republicans believe they must end precisely for the same reason. Who should decide how much more than $1.5 trillion should be spent on health care over the next 7 years, the bureaucrats in Washington or the Governors and State legislatures? Spending $1.5 trillion represents tremendous power. The Republican proposal to invest this responsibility in the States represents a sea- change in how Government works. This realization shakes Washington to its very core. If we are successful, Washington will no longer be the center of this power and that is precisely why so much effort is being made to scare people about the Republican proposals. This debate over Medicaid is just one chapter in the larger struggle over our system of federalism. The debate goes to the heart of our beliefs about 50 sovereign States united together as a nation. The partnership between the Federal Government and the States in running the current welfare system has been a pretense in the recent past. Over the past few years, the partnership has, in fact, been an adversarial relationship, based on mutual distrust, suspicion, and threats. President Clinton understand this when, as a Governor a few years ago, he joined 47 other Governors to petition Congress for a moratorium on new Medicaid expansions. Despite the pleas of the Governors, there was no moratorium. Medicaid costs tripled between 1985 and 1993. In 1980, Medicaid spending accounted for about 9 percent of all State spending. In 1990, it accounted for about 14 percent of State spending. Medicaid now consumes 20 percent of State spending. This trend is a threat to our system of federalism. As Medicaid places greater fiscal demands on States, they have been forced to reduce their percentages of spending on education, transportation, and other vital governmental services. For example, the General Accounting Office reports that Medicaid nearly equals the State expenditures for elementary and secondary education combined. This is a very important yardstick as education has generally been the largest segment of State budgets. Without reform, there will be no choice about how States will determine priorities among important services, the funds will simply go to Medicaid. Washington has seized the power of decisionmaking from those elected officials closest to the people. The significance of reversing this quiet coup has been distorted by those who share in the power gained by it. The argument that the poor and the institutions which serve them will be stranded by the States is simply wrong. As the power is drained from Washington, all Americans, including those who depend on others for their access to health care, should eagerly anticipate the reciprocal actions to take place in the States. Freed from the current adversarial system, the States will be able to design their own unique methods to help families overcome adversity. States will find more innovative ways to use this money to help families than Washington ever imagined. Under the Republican proposal, State governments will be empowered to use Medicaid dollars to act in the same manner as the private sector to lower costs while at the same time improve quality. Medicaid reform will trigger a series of benefits throughout the States. Last year, President Clinton was right when he stated that ``the health care issue is an important part of welfare reform.'' Although his solution was fatally flawed, he correctly identified the real issue before us now. The President said, The biggest problem we've got with welfare for a lot of people is that--remember if you're poor, on Medicaid and no welfare, your children get health care. If you take a minimum wage job in a business that doesn't have health insurance, you have to give up your kid's health care to go to work. Mr. President, this is precisely why Medicaid reform is so vital. The present system traps families into welfare dependency. The current scheme is laden with perverse disincentives. Many families will return to work and no longer need cash assistance, if the power of Medicaid dollars is used in the marketplace to secure health care for low-income families. For example, the General Accounting Office recently reported that Tennessee has extended coverage to several hundred thousand newly eligible individuals while increasing expenditures by less than 1 percent. State officials in four States with demonstration waivers estimate as many as 2 million previously uninsured individuals can be provided with coverage while yielding savings of about $6 billion over 5 years. Over the past several years, large private employers have used their muscle in the marketplace. Private sector employers and, I might add, the Federal Government for its own employees, have been using competition in ways to simultaneously lower costs and increase quality. In Medicaid, however, we have witnessed the opposite effect. The Boren amendment, for example, has been used to actually bid the price of nursing home care up higher. Between 1980 and 1985, Medicaid payments for nursing home care increased by an average of 7.8 percent annually. In 1989, payments had increased by 8.8 percent from the previous year. But after a key Supreme Court decision on the Boren amendment in 1990, Medicaid payments for nursing home care increased by 17 percent in 1991. Utah's Medicaid Program provides 30 percent more benefits than these provided to the average worker in the private sector. Yet the Federal Government has prohibited Utah from leveling the Medicaid benefits to 118 percent to the average private sector plan. The Governor would have used the savings to extend coverage to people who are currently uninsured, but the Federal bureaucracy refused to approve this initiative. Through a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the working families of Utah are required to support a system which provides better benefits than they purchase for themselves. This is the system the administration insists it must safeguard. This has nothing to do with protecting the vulnerable. Medicaid reform is needed to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary duplication. Under current law, States, are required to screen individuals entering nursing homes to prevent inappropriate placement. California has performed 80,000 such screenings each year since 1989 at a total cost of $28.5 million. Only five individuals have been identified by this mandated program as having been inappropriately placed. That is a cost of $5.6 million per individual identified as needing a more appropriate placement. What interest does this serve? Certainly not the interest of the taxpayer nor the recipient. Finding the right nursing home setting just takes plain common sense, not the Federal bureaucracy. Those who insist on maintaining the status quo are scaring the elderly and disabled. In truth, these needy citizens have nothing to fear from the Republican proposal. The Post editorial is rooted in the past. For a glimpse at the future, I recommend an article by Massachusetts Gov. William Weld entitled, ``Release Us From Federal Nonsense,'' which appeared in the Wall Street Journal this past week. Governor Weld states that: Before we privatized mental health services, patients were warehoused in state institutions; now we save $60 million a year, and the patients live in less intrusive settings that almost everyone agrees are much more humane. In case after case, not only did we not hurt the poor, the elderly, and the vulnerable, we managed to do a lot better by them than previous administrations. It has been the States which have protected the dignity of so many by helping disabled individuals to live with their families. The States understand disabled individuals need a continuum of care and a variety of services including medical care, income support, nutrition assistance, education and training, transportation, and social services. Devolution of authority will improve the coordination and quality of services. Advocacy is strongest at the closest point of service. While Washington works to protect programs, the States are in a superior position to protect the interests of people. It is the arrogance of Washington, as Governor Weld describes, that prevents the States from serving our citizens even better. Mr. President, the Washington Post was correct to point out that the Medicaid debate is not just about money, although we must not overlook the importance of our securing our economic future through achieving a balanced budget. The Post prefers to promote the current Medicaid system above the interest in restoring the balance of power between the States and the Federal Government. In doing so, it has failed to recognize that Medicaid is drawing resources away from education and other vital services. Moreover, the future ability of the States to preserve their constitutional role in our system of federalism should not be so lightly dismissed. In a landmark case about federalism, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warned, ``all that stands between the remaining essentials of State sovereignty and Congress is the latter's underdeveloped capacity for self-restraint.'' Our system of federalism is truly reaching in crossroads and Medicaid is one of the landmarks which will guide our choice. At its core, the Republican proposal to reform Medicaid is about rediscovering our fundamental principles about Government by consent. Franklin Roosevelt once stated that: It must be obvious that almost every new or old problem of government must be solved, if it is to be solved to the satisfaction of the people of the whole country, by each state in its own way. Mr. President, this simple statement captures so clearly and so precisely what the Republicans are proposing to the American people. There is no greater threat to our democratic institutions today than the consolidation of power in Washington. It is time to free the States and our citizens from the chokehold of the Federal Government. The Post has this much right--the fight is not just about the Federal budget. There is indeed so much more at stake. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a copy of the Washington Post editorial and a column by Governor Weld be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, yesterday the Finance Committee reported out S. 1470 with technical changes. The committee will not file a written report. For the benefit of my colleagues, the following is a synopsis of the bill's provisions. The Social Security retirement earnings limit for senior citizens age 65 to 69 is gradually increased from the 1995 level of $11,280 to $30,000 by the year 2002. The cost of the retirement earnings limit proposal is offset by the following reforms: Drug addicts and alcoholics will no longer qualify for SSI and SSDI disability benefits solely by reason of their addiction; and stepchildren will no longer qualify for Social Security dependents' benefits unless their stepparent provides at least 50 percent of the stepchild's support; such benefits will terminate the month following the divorce. A new revolving fund is created within the SSDI Trust Fund to provide a stable source of funds for the Social Security Administration to conduct continuing disability reviews of SSDI recipients. The legislation clarifies that the Secretary of the Treasury and other Federal officials are not authorized to underinvest and/or disinvest Social Security and Medicare funds in Federal securities or obligations in order to avoid the limitations on the public debt. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the synopsis of S. 1470 be printed in the Record, together with a letter from John D. Hawke, Under Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. ROTH

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