William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Yes. I am happy to yield.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, life can only be understood backward; but it must be lived forward. As such, we often find ourselves forced to respond to the consequences of decisions and even indecisions that were and were not made at the most appropriate moment in time. As a Nation, we have no oracle--only history--and the wisdom of God has given us to govern our affairs and to support our democratic ideal among sovereigns and allies. Often we overlook the majesty of our role--our responsibility--that is, until a man of Shimon Peres' standing reminds us that our Nation is ``a commitment to values before an expression of might * * *'' That our strength has saved the world from ``Nazi tyranny, Japanese militarism, and the Communist challenge.'' That we have ``enabled many nations to save their democracies even as [we] strive now to assist many nations to free themselves from their nondemocratic past.'' This, Mr. President, is our legacy. And I am grateful to Prime Minister Peres for reminding us of who we are and what--since our divinely-appointed founding--has been our mission: freedom for us and self-determination for our fellow man. Certainly, there are many ways to pursue this mission. We cannot be the world's policeman; nor should we. We must cherish the strength of America, and that means using it wisely, sparingly--certainly with some sacrifice--but never with imprudence, undue risk, and wanton disregard for our best interests. The territorial aggression and horrific atrocities in the Balkans bring us to the floor today. The death and crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia have bruised our collective spirit, especially as the international community has been unable to resolve the conflict and establish reconciliation and lasting peace. There was a time when, perhaps, America's resolved leadership could have minimized and even resolved the crisis by lifting the arms embargo against the Bosnians--by allowing them to defend themselves against the well-armed Serb aggressors. At the same time we could have provided tactical and strategic air support to the Bosnian forces. But President Clinton chose another road, one that brings us to the floor today. Life can only be understood backward; but it must be lived forward. Today we are forced to respond to the consequences of the President's decisions and indecisions, and history must be our guide. The outcome here will not only have an influence on the security and lives of thousands of young American men and women, but it will affect us as a society, our leadership among allies, and the future of Europe--particularly the war-torn region known as the Balkans. It is a difficult debate, one that must be entered thoughtfully, solemnly, and with the object of finding solutions rather than playing politics. It would be tempting to fill the air with ``what ifs'' and ``if onlys,'' but we are beyond that point. President Clinton has committed U.S. ground forces. He has done this as part of a peace process whose success will largely depend upon how we, the Congress, react--upon our determination and demonstration of support for the young American men and women who are even now moving into that region. If we appear divided, we risk sending a message to those who would thwart the peace process that if they only hold out long enough support for our troops will weaken. This is not a risk that I am willing to take. Much of the support leaving our shores is leaving from Dover Air Force Base. I have met with many of these young men and women; I know their concerns; I know their courage. And I know that every individual being sent into the Balkans is just like them. And I will not trifle with their security, with their future, and with the future of their families, their children. When they wear our uniform in Bosnia I want them to know that they have my unqualified support. I want them to know that they are there for a reason, they are on a mission--a mission with a purpose that was outlined so eloquently by Prime Minister Peres, to help this war-torn land free itself from its undemocratic past. We cannot avoid our leadership, nor can we dismiss our legacy. Certainly, President Clinton could have embraced our earlier proposal and taken America down another road; but he did not. And the fact is, we do have an interest in seeing that peace is maintained in this region. To date, more than a quarter million men, women, and children have been killed--many in the most horrible and atrocious manner. Over 2 million have been displaced and forced to flee. We have proof of mass executions, rapes, and other unspeakable crimes. Our legacy of support for human rights abhors these conditions. America has gone to Europe to advance our ideals in two world wars. We have spent untold resources and dedicated countless lives to winning the cold war for the same reason--to advance the principles of freedom, democracy and self-determination. Perhaps the time has come to finish the task, to take a step toward bolting down our successes and see that the foundation for a peaceful European future is strong and sure. This is not inconsistent with our responsibilities as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In fact, this peace-keeping mission will be the largest NATO mission in its history and the first since the end of the cold war. An unwillingness on the part of America at this point could do irreparable damage to the Transatlantic Partnership and its central institution, the North Atlantic Alliance. Failure to follow-through on the commitment President Clinton has made would also undermine our position as a world leader. Our allies must know that they can depend on us. This is critically important, because if we fail to keep the peace in the Balkans it is possible that the conflict may well spill beyond the borders and into NATO territory. Under those circumstances we would not be sending our young men and women to strengthen the peace, but to prosecute a war. I would rather have them there to strengthen the peace. Mr. President, life can only be understood backward; but it must be lived forward. Perhaps President Clinton should have heeded our earlier counsel. I would rather see peace in the Balkans and negotiations based on parity of strength, rather than on the presence of our ground troops. I would rather see our involvement limited to strategic and tactical air and sea support. But those are not options, not anymore. When President Clinton picked up one end of the stick, he picked up the other. Now we must give the troops he has committed to the Balkans our full support. An absolute requirement for success is to have Congress and the Nation united over the mission now under way. We must have bipartisan support. This is why I have been so impressed by Senator Dole's and Senator McCain's role in the negotiations between Congress and the executive branch. Through their statesmanship, they have offered an approach that captures our commitment to protect and support American troops deployed to the Balkan and that defines the core requisites to the success of the peace process. Supporting the Dole-McCain endeavor is the appropriate response to our responsibilities as a world leader and as member of NATO. The most useful contribution this body can make to the peace process is to help ensure that America's role in the peace process will be guided by clearly defined objectives and strategies. In doing so, we would be living up to our responsibilities to support the American men and women assigned to this mission of peace and to the interests of America in post-cold-war Europe. Mr. President, I yield back the floor. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Frederic S. Baron, a Pearson Fellow, and Maureen Fino, an Industry Fellow, be permitted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the resolution on Bosnia. I do that on behalf of my distinguished colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today, with Senator McCain, I am introducing the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. This bill raises the Social Security earnings limit for workers age 65 to 69 to $30,000 by the year 2002. I am happy to say that this increase in the earnings limit is fully paid for over the 7-year period. In addition, this bill will protect the Social Security trust fund from disinvestment or underinvestment by the Secretary of the Treasury or any other Federal officials. Under current law, seniors in this age group, who earn more than $11,280 this year, are penalized by forfeiting $1 for every $3 they earn over that limit. When coupled with other Federal taxes, these workers who earn above this $11,280 mark face a 56-percent marginal tax rate. As I have often said, this is not fair. The earnings penalty sends a message to senior citizens that we no longer value their experience and expertise in the work force. I am happy to introduce this legislation that will provide equity to these hard-working seniors. I must note that a large part of the credit for this legislation in the Senate is due to the efforts of the senior Senator from Arizona, Senator John McCain, who has tirelessly championed this cause. I thank him for his work on this issue.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, there are alarming signals coming from the White House that President Clinton may veto welfare reform. Instead of ending welfare as we know it, the Administration apparently intends to continue politics as usual. From the early days of his administration, President Clinton promised welfare reform to the American people. On February 2, 1993, he told the Nation's Governors that he would announce the formation of a welfare reform group within 10 days to work with the Governors to develop a welfare reform plan. At that meeting, the President outlined four principles which would guide his administration to reform welfare. The first principle as outlined by the President is that ``welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life.'' In further defining what these means, the President stated that people should work within 2 years and that, ``there must be--a time-certain beyond which people don't draw a check for doing nothing when they can do something.'' On July 13, 1993, President Clinton went even further and told the National Association of County Officials that a 2-year limit could be put on welfare. He said, ``you shouldn't be able to stay on welfare without working for more than a couple of years. After that, you should have to work and earn income just like everybody else.'' He went on to say, ``And if you put the building blocks in, you can have a 2-year limit on welfare as we know it. You would end the system as it now exists.'' Mr. President, that is a strong statement and a bold challenge. H.R. 4, the ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1995,'' meets this first principle. We require people to work after 2 years and place a 5-year limit on the receipt of Federal benefits. Let me repeal this. We provide not a 2-year limit on benefits, but a 5-year limit. And, I might add, the conference report on H.R. 4 allows the States to exempt up to 15 percent of their caseload from this limit. The President's support for time limits, by the way, is one of the many ironies throughout the welfare reform debate. A good deal of attention has been focused on the analysis done by the Department of Health and Human Services on the impact the various welfare bills would have on families and children. The single greatest reason families would become ineligible for benefits is the 5 year limit. It is a bit inconsistent for the President to embrace a time limit but invite criticism of our proposal for a 5-year limit on benefits. The second principle, as outlined by the President, is ``we need to make work pay.'' The President indicated, that through the earned income credit program, ``we ought to be able to lift people who work 40 hours a week, with kids in their home, out of poverty.'' The Republican balanced budget plan is consistent with this second principle outlined by the President. Under our plan, the EIC continues to grow. We are targeting the EIC program to those most in need. The administration has criticized the Balanced Budget Act for its provisions on EIC. But I believe it is both fair and accurate to point out that in expanding the EIC, the Clinton administration and the Democratic 103d Congress went far beyond the President's stated goal as well as beyond the original goals of this program. For example, they expanded the credit to individuals who did not have children at home. We have found unacceptable levels of errors, abuse, and waste in this program. Spending for the EIC is quite simply out of control. We have proposed a responsible and reasonable reform of the EIC program separate from H.R. 4. Our welfare bill does not conflict with the President's principle on work. The third principle of welfare reform outlined by President Clinton some 34 months ago is that tougher child support enforcement is needed. H.R. 4 fully meets this principle. In an October 18, 1995 letter, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget informed the majority leader that: The Administration strongly supports bipartisan provisions in both the House and Senate bills to streamline paternity establishment, require new hire reporting, establish State registries, make child support laws uniform across State lines, and require [[Page S 18263]] States to use the threat of denying drivers' and professional licenses to parents who refuse to pay child support. Clearly H.R. 4 meets the President's position on child support enforcement. The fourth principle outlined by the President was his commitment to encourage experimentation in the States. To his credit, his administration has approved a number of waivers to allow the States the flexibility to experiment. But waivers are not enough as the President himself, as a former Governor, realizes. When he spoke to the Governors again this year on June 6, in Baltimore, the President told the Governors, You could not design a program that would be too tough on work for me. You could not design a program that would give the States any more flexibility than I want to give them as long as we recognize that we . . . have a responsibility to our children and to that in the end, our political and economic policies must reinforce the culture we are trying to create. They must be pro-family and pro-work. At the same time, President Clinton also told the Governors that, ``we can save some money and reduce the deficit in this welfare area.'' Then, on July 20 this year, he told the National Conference of State Legislatures that ``what I want to do in the welfare reform debate is to give you the maximum amount of flexibility, consistent with some simple objectives. I do think the only place we need Federal rules and welfare reform * * * is in the area of child support enforcement because so many of those cases cross State lines.'' The President went on to say, ``so I am going to do my best to get you a welfare reform proposal which gives more flexibility to the States and doesn't have a lot of ideological proscriptions * * * and just focuses on one or two big things that need to be done. I think that is the right way to do it.'' Mr. President, we will provide the opportunity to make good on these words. The President has told the Governors he wants to protect the States even when there is an economic downturn. We have done this with an $800 million contingency fund and a $1.7 billion loan fund. President told them he wanted funding for child care. H.R. 4 provides $17 billion for child care for welfare and low-income families. This is over $700 million more than under current law. He told the Governors the problem with a block grant was that States would cut their own funding and therefore he wanted requirements for States to maintain their own funding. H.R. 4 imposes such requirements. Furthermore, the conference agreement provides $3.5 billion in more funding for the block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families than under the Senate bill which passed 87-12. The President indicated his interest in a performance bonus which forces the bureaucracy and recipients to focus on work. Establishing performance standards is a subject which I have personally worked on for years. H.R. 4 includes work-based performance standards. It is clear we have responded positively to all of these concerns. The President also indicated he was willing to give the States more flexibility in child nutrition, adoption, and child protective services. H.R. 4 protects the current entitlements of foster care and adoption assistance maintenance payments. Between 1995 and 2002, funding for foster care will increase by nearly 80 percent. Funding for child nutrition will increase from less than $8 billion in fiscal year 1995 to over $11 billion in 2002. These are the fundamental principles the President outlined to the Governors and to the Nation. Congress will shortly send a welfare reform bill which meets these principles. It would be regrettable if the President walks away from all of these things which he so recently pledged. The need to reform the welfare system is as critical today as it was nearly 3 years ago when the President took office. The number of children receiving AFDC increased nearly threefold between 1965 and 1993. By comparison, the total number of children in the United States aged 0 to 18 declined by 5.5 percent during this period. In 1965, the average monthly number of children receiving AFDC was 3.3 million; in 1970, it was 6.2 million; in 1980, it was 7.4 million; and in 1993, there were nearly 9.6 million children receiving AFDC benefits. The Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that 12 million children will receive AFDC benefits by the year 2005 under current law. If he vetoes welfare reform, President Clinton will be accepting the status quo in which another two and one-half million children will fall into the welfare system. If the President vetoes welfare reform, he will be preserving a system which costs and wastes billions of taxpayers dollars. The General Accounting Office has estimated, for example, that nearly $1.8 billion in overpayments were made in the Food Stamp Program in 1993 alone. A critical point of welfare reform is to give the States both the authority and the responsibility for efficiently, compassionately, and effectively administering these programs. As a former Governor, the President surely knows well the duplication in the delivery of benefits. It costs over $6 billion just to administer the AFDC and Food Stamp Programs. When you include the cost of errors, fraud, and abuse in these two programs, another $3 billion is wasted. We have therefore proposed an optional block grant for the Food Stamp Program. At a town meeting this past June, the President told the people of New Hampshire that his administration has given 29 states waivers to use food stamps and welfare checks to employers as a wage supplement. If it is good policy as a waiver, it is good policy to allow Governors to accept an optional block grant. Another important area of reform is the Supplemental Security Income Program. The SSI Program was established 21 years ago principally to provide a welfare retirement program for aged and disabled adults who were unable to contribute enough into the Social Security system. With this purpose in mind, one would think that the cost of this program should at least be stable as the elderly SSI population has actually declined by more than one-third since 1974. Instead, SSI is the largest cash assistance program for the poor and one of the fastest growing entitlement programs. Programs costs have grown 20 percent annually in the last 4 years. The SSI reforms in H.R. 4 are designed to slow the growth in the two populations which have seen tremendous increases in recent years, noncitizens and children. In 1982, noncitizens constituted 3 percent of all SSI recipients. In 1993, noncitizens constituted nearly 12 percent of the entire SSI caseload. From 1986 through 1993, the number of aged or disabled noncitizen recipients grew an average of 15 percent annually, reaching nearly 700,000 in 1993. Today, almost one out of every four elderly SSI recipients is a noncitizen. GAO calculates that noncitizens are actually more likely to receive SSI than citizens. The majority of these elderly noncitizens, 57 percent, have been in the United States less than 5 years. In total, our reforms directed at noncitizens will save the taxpayers more than $20 billion. If President Clinton vetoes H.R. 4, these savings will be lost. According to the General Accounting Office, the growth in the number of disabled children receiving cash payments under SSI was moderate before 1990, averaging 3 percent annually between 1984 and 1990. Then, from the beginning of 1990 through 1994, the growth averaged 25 percent annually, and the number tripled to nearly 900,000. Their share of the disabled SSI population grew from about 12 percent before 1990 to 22 percent in 1994. The number of children who are disabled and receive benefits has increased by 166 percent just since 1990. I would remind my colleagues that the changes in the definition of childhood disability included in H.R. 4 was adopted on a bipartisan basis. The conference agreement maintains the commitment to children who are disabled. All children currently receiving SSI benefits will continue to receive the full cash benefit to which they are entitled through January 1, 1997. The conference report increases Federal spending on welfare programs. Expenditures for the programs under H.R. 4 totaled $83.2 billion in 1995. Under [[Page S 18264]] H.R. 4, they will increase by one-third to total $111.3 billion in 2002. Between 1995 and 2002, total expenditures for these programs will be $753.7 billion. The conference report also provides support for other areas in which the President has indicated support. The President has called for action to prevent teen pregnancies. We provide $75 million for abstinence education. The President has called for tough child support enforcement. Our welfare reform bill includes significant improvements in child support enforcement which will help families avoid and escape poverty. The failure of an absent parent to pay child support is a major reason the number of children living in poverty has increased. Between 1980 and 1992, the nationwide child support enforcement caseload grew 180 percent, from 5.4 to 15.2 million cases. The sheer growth in the caseload has strained the system. There have been improvements in the child support enforcement system as collections have increased to $10 billion per year, but we clearly need to do better. The House and Senate have included a number of child support enforcement reforms. These include expansion of the Federal Parent Locator Service, adoption of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act--UIFSA--use of Social Security numbers for child support enforcement, improvements in administration of interstate cases, new hire reporting, and reporting arrearages to credit bureaus. Our conference report provides increased funding for child support data automation. As I have already mentioned, these provisions have been endorsed by the administration. Let me also note that I recently received a letter from the American Bar Association in which the ABA states it ``strongly supports the child support provisions in the conference report.'' The letter goes on to say, ``If these child support reforms are enacted, it will be an historic stride forward for children in our nation.'' If the President vetoes welfare reform, he will forfeit this historic opportunity. 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 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 the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first of all, let me express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his courtesy and compliment him on his most eloquent statement. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to what I believe is a very destructive provision in H.R. 1530, the Defense authorization bill. That provision would repeal the public laws that created and gave authority to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. What is at stake here are the lives of our men and women in uniform. The OT&E was created by Congress over 10 years ago with strong bipartisan support. The purpose of this office is to ensure that our servicemen receive weapons that are tested in an independent manner and in an operationally realistic environment. This office was created to guarantee that the weapons our soldiers take into the battlefield are ready for combat. In this important way, the OT&E saves lives. Mr. President, the OT&E is also the conscience of the acquisition process. Its work has helped to prevent waste and fraud. It is the cornerstone to Congress' and the Pentagon's fly-before-you-buy approach to new weapons platforms and other military equipment. In this important way, the OT&E saves the taxpayer money. I understand that the provisions eliminating the Director of the OT&E originated out of an effort to streamline the already bloated Pentagon bureaucracy. I support that larger effort. Together with Congressman Kasich, I have sponsored legislation that would streamline the Pentagon's acquisition process. However, eliminating an effective OT&E will not eliminate the need for testing under realistic battlefield conditions. It does raise the question as to what office will be responsible for approving tests and representing the troops through independent evaluations of new weapons. Moreover, the OT&E has already been streamlined. Last year's Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act merged live-fire testing with the operational testing function. We should also recognize that the OT&E is already one of the smallest directorates in the Pentagon. Mr. President, the OT&E is an office that has earned the respect of others in the Pentagon and in Congress. After Operation Desert Storm, former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney stated that the vigorous, independent testing oversight put into place by Congress ``saved more lives'' than perhaps any other single initiative. Just last year, the GAO testified before Congress stating that the priority we give to independent testing and evaluation should be increased and not decreased. In its examination of operational testing, the GAO concluded that any changes to legislation for the testing and evaluation of military equipment should preserve, if not strengthen, the fly-before-buy principle. Yes, Mr. President, the provisions in this year's Defense authorization bill would weaken that legislation. Let me also remind my colleagues that this body, the U.S. Senate, unanimously passed a resolution just this last August expressing our belief that the authorities and office of the OT&E must be preserved. It is, thus, surprising if not shocking, that the conferees appear to have overlooked this resolution. Above all, Mr. President, the provisions that effectively decapitate the OT&E constitute an issue of priorities. Do we care more about reducing the size of the Office of the Secretary of Defense or the safety of our troops? I firmly believe that if this provision of the Defense Authorization Act is not removed, Congress will be putting countless lives at risk in the name of reducing a handful of billets. To do just that as we are sending our troops to Bosnia seems to me to be all the more dangerous. Just yesterday, I read in the New York Times that our forces deploying in the Balkans will be equipped with an array of new technologies that have never been tested in combat. Could we imagine sending our [[Page S 18055]] troops to battle with equipment that we have not made the fullest effort to subject to operationally realistic testing? Mr. President, I urge the conferees of the Defense Authorization Act to remove the provisions eliminating the Office of Operational Test and Evaluation. If they are unable to remove that provision, I will encourage my colleagues in the Senate to vote against the authorization bill. The safety of our servicemen and women requires our full support. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, complications in my schedule prevented me from casting a vote last night on the conference report to H.R. 1058, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The report passed by a margin of 65 to 30. I rise today to indicate my full support for the conference report. This is important legislation, because it provides much-needed reform to the current rules governing private securities litigation, which have led to far too many abusive and costly strike lawsuits. Those suits hurt businesses by hampering the formation of capital and by impairing the orderly working of America's capital markets. This, in turn, hurts all Americans because it places a dangerous drag on the ability of American businesses to create jobs and prosperity. Yet in its scope and effect, the report is appropriately tailored. It addresses the harms caused by frivolous litigation without compromising the ability of plaintiffs who have meritorious claims to be made whole. Moreover, it does not alter the enforcement prerogatives of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. President, I voted earlier this year in favor of S. 240, the quite similar securities reform bill that the Senate passed in June. Had my schedule permitted, I would have cast my vote last night in favor of the conference report on H.R. 1058. I would like to make it clear today that if President Clinton sees fit to veto the report--an ill-advised step I urge him not to take--I will wholeheartedly support this legislation again in order to override such a veto.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as the author of the Amtrak amendment, I cannot overemphasize my extreme disappointment that the National Highway System conference report does not include this amendment. This amendment passed overwhelmingly in the Senate by a vote of 64 to 36. In April, when I introduced the Intercity Rail Investment Act with 13 cosponsors, I thought I had an approach that would be acceptable to all parties. I find it difficult to understand the objection to this proposal. As others have pointed out, in other countries, a viable rail system has always depended upon Government aid. Frankly, when I offered the Roth-Biden amendment to the National Highway System bill, it was overwhelmingly approved, as I thought it would be. While my amendment received strong support in this body, it, unfortunately, ran into difficulty on the House side in the conference. Mr. President, my amendment would have given States the flexibility to use a portion of their Federal transportation dollars for passenger rail service, and it would have provided States with the ability to decide what transportation system would best meet their needs and allow them to allocate their Federal funds accordingly. In a time of budget constraints, my amendment would have empowered State and local officials to make the best use of their Federal resources and, as has been pointed out, one of the things that we have been seeking to do in bringing about change in Government is to provide flexibility to State and local officials to make the best use of the Federal resources that they have available. Sixty-four Senators agreed with me and voted in favor of my amendment. Sixty-four Senators went on record for State choice, for a more balanced transportation system. These Members know that Amtrak is a vital and absolutely essential part of America's transportation network. While the Senate position did not prevail in conference, I know that Senator Chafee and other Members worked hard to convince the House how important this legislation is to our State Governors and to the intermodal transportation system. I want to express my appreciation to Senator Chafee, and others, for what they did. I appreciate their strong support for my amendment and we shall be back. We shall be back until we provide this kind of flexibility to our State officials. Mr. President, the need for passenger rail service is clear. All one has to do is look at our congested areas, particularly in the urban corridors along the east and west coast. Adding more highways simply is not an economic or viable option. In this part of the country, the Northeast corridor alone, annual Amtrak ridership between New York and Washington, DC, is the equivalent of 7,500 fully booked 757's, or 10,000 fully booked DC-9's. If Amtrak were to shut down, adding more highways simply would not be a viable option. Just in the last year, Delaware alone had 607,000 riders. We simply cannot have another system with that kind of capacity without adversely affecting our air quality and our land resources. Mr. President, I know that my amendment would not have solved Amtrak's financial problems. Amtrak will need to continue to do its own internal restructuring. It will also need a dedicated trust fund to support capital needs the way we provide capital for highways and airports. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I recently reported out a bill that would dedicate a half cent from the mass transit fund to Amtrak. This measure would dedicate over $2 billion to Amtrak. As with the Roth-Biden Amtrak amendment, I am also eager to see this legislation enacted this year. While I had hoped that my amendment would have been included in the conference report, I understand, having experienced some of them myself, the constraints that Members must operate under in conference. Mr. President, I will conclude by saying that 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 will vote in favor of a dedicated trust fund for Amtrak and for flexibility for State transportation spending on passenger rail service. Mr. President, I am eager to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to achieve this goal. Again, I thank Senator Chafee for his cooperation.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today we are closer than ever to meeting four fundamental promises we made to the American people when we promised to balance the budget. This legislation offers a balanced budget. We promised to save Medicare, a critical program for our elderly. This legislation preserves and strengthens Medicare. We promised to reform welfare, to end the perverse incentives that have found us spending more and more money only to find more and more children living under the poverty level. We have provided in this legislation real reforms. And, finally, we promised to cut taxes on Americans everywhere, to reverse the record-setting Clinton increases that even the President admits were too high. And with this important balanced budget package we have done just that. I am encouraged by all that this legislative package offers--the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. I am concerned that certain political dynamics that have overtaken this debate are obscuring the real importance of what we are offering today. On its most fundamental level, this legislation is about change, real change in Government. It is the beginning of a new era, a redesigning of the way Washington does business. Certainly, given the monumental issues this package addresses, we can understand why President Clinton has forced us to an impasse. Make no mistake, this legislation is revolutionary. It begins to make changes in the way Government has done business over the last 50 years. It takes the large, overbearing, income-eating, inefficient Federal monolith, a government that was designed for the industrial age, and it prepares it for the 21st century. Making this kind of change is not easy. Institutions resist modernization. They even resist improvements. For this reason, many once mighty civilizations have fallen. On the other hand, growth and opportunity come from change. As the philosophers say, ``The mixture which is not shaken decomposes. Progress lies in changing things that are.'' Our Government needs to change. We need to balance the budget. This is not only the responsible thing to do, it is necessary for a strong, vibrant economy. A balanced budget will lower rates. It will create jobs. Some forecast that over 6 million jobs would be created if the budget were balanced. A balanced budget would also provide a higher standard of living for all Americans. A balanced budget will reduce the burden of debt on future generations. Again, this is a moral responsibility. As Thomas Paine argued, ``* * * no parent, or master, nor all the authority of parliament * * * can bind or control the personal freedom of their posterity.'' But that is exactly what our Government, with 50 years of tax and spend policies, has done. A child born today owes more than $185,000 in interest alone on the Federal debt. If he or she were to pay the debt, it would literally conscript him or her to a lifetime tax rate of 84 percent. Now, we have the responsibility to do something about this, and the package before us today is the beginning of a real and lasting solution. President Clinton in his first State of the Union address maintained that any economic forecasting should be performed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Mr. President, the CBO maintains that our program balanced the budget in 7 years. To balance the budget, of course, we must control the growth of Government, and controlling growth does not mean cutting or abolishing important programs. It simply means that we must bring spending into line with reality. It means getting back within our budget, within our ability to pay for necessary programs and making these programs as efficient and cost effective as possible, and that is what we accomplish with this legislation. I understand that there are basic philosophical differences at play in this current debate. There are honorable representatives and arguments on both sides of the issue, each promoting a vision of Government. Now, those who argue for the status quo believe in the status quo. They have faith in big Government. They trust big Government. And they see it as the solution to very real concerns. Others--and I count myself among this latter group--believe Government needs to be reformed and that growth in Government spending needs to be slowed down. We look at welfare and see that, despite the fact that Government has spent more than $5 trillion--let me repeat--has spent more than $5 trillion over the last 30 years, the program is a catastrophe. We see that in 1965 some 15.6 percent of all families with children under the age of 18 lived below the poverty level. By 1993, that number had grown to 18.5 percent. In other words, we see that despite the fact that Government has thrown trillions and trillions of dollars at the problem, the problem has only become worse. Likewise, the pathologies associated with welfare-- crime, illegitimacy, drug abuse, child neglect, and others--have increased to alarming proportions. And we see that between 1965 and 1992, the number of children receiving AFDC has grown by nearly 200 percent, even while the entire population of children under the age of 18 declined by 5.5 percent during this same period of time. Mr. President, big Government has not worked. In Medicare, big Government has created a program rife with waste, fraud, and abuse. Big Government has literally run the system to the point of bankruptcy. We all know what President Clinton's own commission has said. And I quote: The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (part A) continues to be severely out of financial balance and is projected to be exhausted in about seven years. The SMI Trust Fund (part B), while in balance on an annual basis, shows a rate of growth of costs which is clearly unsustainable. Again, I am repeating what President Clinton's own commissioners had to say. Moreover, [they continue] this fund is projected to be 75 percent or more financed by general revenues, so that given the general budget deficit problem, it is a major contributor to the larger fiscal problems of the nation. The Medicare program is clearly unsustainable in its present form. Again, this analysis of Medicare's current crisis comes from the administration's own trustees. And what we propose today is a solution. Mr. President, we also propose real tax relief. Big Government has successfully pilfered the taxpayer's pocket. Real Federal taxes per household now top $12,000 a year. Total Government taxes, Federal, State, local, reach $18,500 per household. The Federal regulatory burden, which can also be considered a tax, exceeds $6,000 a year. These numbers have been constantly rising, even as the Government has fallen deeper and deeper into debt. For example, Federal taxes now take nearly 25 percent of our median household income every year, up from about 16 percent in 1970. This incessant increase in taxes has stifled economic growth. It is engendered irresponsibility in Government spending, even perverse incentives where programs grow based on their inefficiencies and wasteful practices. And all this has to stop. Let this legislation serve as the catalyst for real reform. It successfully balances the budget in 7 years by controlling the growth of spending while promoting economic growth. It preserves and strengthens Medicare by allowing the program to grow at about twice the rate of inflation and by introducing choice in the system. In this way, seniors are guaranteed continued coverage as well as the ability to choose those plans and health care providers that best meet their needs. In this bill, Medicare spending increases from $178 billion in 1995 to $286 billion in 2002. Average spending per beneficiary grows 7.7 percent per year, or from $4,800 to $7,100. Remember, President Clinton himself said, ``Medicare [is] going up three times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at two times the rate of inflation. This is not a Medicare . . . cut.'' That is a quote of President Clinton himself. Our proposal controls runaway costs by introducing choice into the system. It gives our seniors the ability to remain in the current fee- for-service plan, if that is what they want. There is no change, no cut in any of the medical services available today. But, in addition, we also offer them an unlimited number of health care plan options that they may choose to better meet their needs. Our plan also aggressively attacks fraud and abuse in the Medicare Program. The GAO estimates the loss to Medicare from fraud and abuse equals some 10 percent of the program's total spending, and law enforcement officials claim that the majority of Medicare fraud goes undetected. Our proposal directs the Secretary of HHS and the Attorney General to establish a national health care fraud and abuse control program to coordinate Federal, State and local law enforcement efforts in this area. We earmark some $150 million in the first year to use specifically for investigations and prosecutions of health care fraud. We also offer a number of new tools to assist investigators and prosecutors in attacking this problem. The CBO has estimated that our provisions in this area will save the program more than $3.5 billion over 7 years. Mr. President, these are the kinds of reforms we must make to preserve and to strengthen important programs. In welfare reform, we must reverse perverse incentives that have sapped the spirit of so many Americans, perverse incentives that have engendered dependency on Government and contributed to decay and even moral decline within our cities. We must give Americans, as I say, tax relief. President Clinton, by his recent admission that he raised taxes too high, recognizes that our families are stretched beyond reasonable limits. High taxes kill savings, risk taking, incentive and economic opportunity. High taxes undermine job creation. We offer Americans $245 billion in tax relief over 7 years. This includes a $500 per child credit, relief from the marriage penalty and tax credits for adoptions and deductions for student loans. This relief gives our families incentives to save. That President Clinton has elected to shut down the Government rather than work with us towards achieving these objectives is, indeed, a mystery. Again, he once proposed a child tax credit, a credit of up to $800. Now, as with Medicare and welfare and even balancing the budget, he is backing away from his promises. Not only this, some are even attempting to make political hay out of the tax relief we are offering, trying to tie it to our efforts to slow the runaway growth in Medicare. Let me say again that tax relief does not come at the expense of Medicare. As the Washington Post points out: ``The Democrats have fabricated the Medicare-tax cut connection because it is useful politically.'' In an earlier editorial, the Post stated that ``the Democrats are engaged in demagoguery, big time. And it's wrong. * * *'' It goes on to say: [the Republicans] have a plan. Enough is known about it to say it's credible; it's gutsy and in some respects inventive--and it addresses a genuine problem that is only going to get worse. What Democrats have on the other hand is a lot of expostulation, TV ads and scare talk. We must get beyond the scare talks. We must get beyond the political posturing that has brought the greatest Government on Earth to a standstill. The American people deserve better. They deserve a Government that works, a Government that works for them. This, of course, is not the first time Government has been shut down. Ronald Reagan shut the Government down because during his tenure, Congress wanted to spend too much. Today, Clinton has shut it down because he wants to spend too much. Look at the numbers, Mr. President. We cannot afford the waste, growth and inefficiency of the last 50 years, but what we can afford are the well-conceived, workable reforms contained in this Balanced Budget Act of 1995. I stand behind it, and I urge the President to sign it. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.

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

Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This legislation sets the part B monthly premium for 1996 at 31.5 percent of part B costs, the exact same percentage of cost beneficiaries cover today through their premiums. I might point out that the Senate has already approved this change in the budget reconciliation bill. Mr. President, if we do not make a change in the part B premium, the percentage of part B spending that beneficiaries cover through their premiums will drop on January 1. And as I said, beneficiaries now pay for 31.5 percent of part B spending through premiums, and as of January 1 of this next year it would drop to 25 percent. If we do not pass this legislation by next week, the Social Security Administration tells us it cannot change the premium for another 4 months because of the time it needs to reprogram its computers. This part B premium change is a downpayment on restoring fiscal security to part B. I might point out that part B is strictly voluntary on the part of our senior citizens as to whether or not they enroll in it. A lot of attention has been focused on the need to restore solvency to the part A trust fund. But part B spending is also a major problem. The Medicare trustees, trustees appointed by President Clinton, in their 1995 report on the part B trust fund, pointed out that part B costs have increased 53 percent in the last 5 years and costs grew 19 percent faster than the economy as a whole. In my view, it simply does not make sense to let the part B premium go down when, in fact, part B costs are exploding. Let us remember where the rest of part B spending comes from. It comes from taxes, taxes paid for by the American people. And even under the reconciliation bill, the taxpayer subsidy of part B will be almost 70 percent of part B costs. The public trustees--again, the same trustees appointed by President Clinton--of the Medicare program termed the part B subsidy a major contributor to the fiscal problems of the Nation. In other words, this subsidy is a direct contribution to our deficit. Some will undoubtedly claim that this premium change will burden American seniors. We do not think so. The premium change, as I said, simply continues the current level of beneficiary cost-sharing among 36 other Medicare beneficiaries. We think this is fair. We urge the Members of this Chamber to defeat this amendment. I yield the floor, reserving the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROTH. Not right now. First I want to yield time to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming. Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I move to table the Moynihan amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. ROTH. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I yield such time as I may use. The temporary debt increase we propose this evening will allow the Treasury to make benefit and interest payments for another month. It will allow the Government to meet its obligations and that, I believe, is the right decision. For that reason, I must oppose the Moynihan amendment. I oppose the Moynihan amendment because, first, it would strike provisions that would protect the Social Security, Medicare and other trust funds. Not only would it strike those provisions, but it provides discretion, as my distinguished colleague from Georgia pointed out, it provides discretion to the administration to exceed even the temporary debt limit for amounts reasonably necessary to meet current spending requirements. [[Page S 16911]] To sum it up, there is really no dollar limitation under this temporary increase as provided under the Moynihan amendment, nor is it clear as to what period of time it would cover. Madam President, beyond this, I want to emphasize our legislation would protect the integrity of trust funds, like Social Security and Medicare, by requiring the Treasury to automatically invest FICA receipts. Further, it would only allow the disinvestment of these trust funds for benefits paid. In other words, the Treasury will not be allowed to use these protected funds to discharge other financial obligations of the Government. In the past, Treasury has allowed these trust funds to be underinvested. This will no longer happen, and our legislation will ensure that Social Security benefits are paid on time. This is important. The right decision is to keep the obligations Government has made. The right decision is to protect the integrity of these trust funds. The Secretary of the Treasury will not be allowed to sell or redeem securities, obligations or other assets of the trust funds and special accounts during this period. The only exception will be when it is necessary to pay benefits and administrative expenses of the cash benefit programs, and these programs not only include Social Security, but Federal Civil Service and military requirements, as well as unemployment insurance. Again, these are important contracts Government has made with the people. As an added measure of security for those who depend on these programs, this legislation requires the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress and the GAO 3 days before making a sale or redemption of securities from the trust funds or special accounts during this period of debt limitation, and it would also require the GAO to monitor compliance with these provisions and report its findings. Madam President, we must pass this legislation. We must increase the debt limit on a temporary basis. This is the only way to let the Federal Government continue its smooth operation. It is the only way we can follow through with our historic work of getting a balanced budget without disrupting financial markets. I point out, there are other provisions included in this legislation, but time does not permit me to speak about each of these at this time. However, because of the importance of these provisions, especially those that restrict the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to underinvest or to disinvest trust funds, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from New York. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. ROTH. First, Madam President, I congratulate my distinguished colleague from Michigan for the leadership he has demonstrated in helping develop this most important piece of legislation to dismantle the Commerce Department. This basic legislation is important, and I think it is also workable. During my tenure as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I held hearings to determine the best way to prepare the Federal Government for the 21st century, the best way to streamline and make it more efficient and effective. Our hearings came to two certain conclusions: First, that the Federal Government is obsolete in its present form, a 50-year old relic that is structurally incapable of meeting the needs of the 21st century. And it is so rife with duplication and fragmentation that, according to the GAO, some six agencies perform each major mission. Our second conclusion was that the Commerce Department is a microcosm of almost everything that is wrong with the Federal Government as a whole. There is no better place to begin eliminating wasteful bureaucracy and restructuring core missions to meet the needs of the 21st century. This proposal contains restructuring actions with broad bipartisan support. The bill transfers the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis to the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, as a first step toward creating a single Government statistics agency. It unifies critical trade functions within a single Cabinet-level agency, the Office of the United States Trade Representative. For almost two decades now, I have personally advocated the elimination of Commerce and the creation of a trade agency. The Governmental Affairs Committee has passed similar bills to achieve this same purpose in previous sessions of Congress. This provision also creates a bipartisan ``Citizens Commission on the 21st Century Government'' to move from Commerce to the bigger picture of what the government of the future should look like and how it should perform. The Commission is directed to reexamine missions and functions of the Federal Government in the 21st Century, and fundamentally restructure the bureaucracy to improve productivity and service delivery. The Commission will produce its first report by July 31, 1996, for fast-track consideration before the end of the 104th Congress. This time frame is ambitious, but it must be kept to meet the public's mandate for change. The issues to be addressed by the Commission will require bold, bipartisan action. The Governmental Affairs Committee has reported restructuring commission bills in previous sessions of Congress. The last one, sponsored by Senators Glenn, Lieberman and myself, passed the Committee nearly unanimously in 1993. It preserve important funding authorities of the Economic Development Administration and the Minority Business Development Agency by transferring them to other agencies which perform very similar functions. [[Page S 16908]] This will allow us to meet our budget targets while eliminating wasteful bureaucracy. It will also allow the best programs from EDA and MBDA the chance to compete for continued life within new agencies. What we have before us this evening is an excellent starting point for the comprehensive, government-wide restructuring the public demands. Today's government is characterized by huge, hierarchical bureaucracies. As we heard from GAO, during our hearings, there is wholesale duplication, overlap, and fragmentation in functions and spending. In a nutshell, the taxpayers are paying for one agency to set a policy or perform a function, another agency to contradict that agency, plus several other agencies who receive funding to perform some related role. As a result, an extensive patchwork of coordinating committees has been created to prevent the bureaucracy from grinding to a halt. The Commerce Department has been described as a loosely knitted ``holding company'' of agencies pursuing unrelated missions. Its management systems and controls are on GAO's high risk list. It directly serves only a small number of favored American firms and industries. Many in the business community have serious doubts that it adds sufficient value to justify its continued existence. Almost all of the experts agree: Commerce should be restructured to eliminate wholesale duplication and fragmentation and bring coherence to the management of its important functions. Let me be clear about one thing, with this provision we are not on a warpath to arbitrarily terminate agencies. We are not out to collect scalps to mount in a trophy case. Nor are we engaged in a superficial shell game which merely redraws boxes on an organization chart. Our objective is to reduce costs and improve services throughout our government Commerce has no single mission or function as an exclusive province. The GAO found that it shares its four major functions with 70 other federal organizations. We must change this organization structure, if we are to give the taxpayers efficient and effective performance of the functions now being performed by Commerce. Sadly, the Commerce Department is typical of the waste and inefficiency that pervades our government. That is why it makes an ideal starting point in the government wide restructuring that is necessary to prepare America for the next century.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President I, rise today to express my profound grief over the death of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin--a man who was brave in the conduct of war and courageous in the pursuit of peace. Yitzhak Rabin's life embodied the very concept of leadership. He was a warrior of great skill, an accomplished diplomat, and, in the fullest sense of the term, a statesman. His leadership was a catalyst of reconciliation and peace in a region long torn by animosity and war. The dramatic progress we have witnessed over the last 2 years in the Middle East peace process would not have occurred without the leadership of Yitzhak Rabin. One of his key strengths as a leader was his ability to bond realism with optimism. It is a trait that is all too rare and all too necessary in regions beset by conflict. Rabin combined his acute understanding of the obstacles to peace in the Middle East with his recognition that peace was essential to security of his nation. The product is the historic roadmap in the Middle East we must now follow. It has not, nor will not, be an easy path. It will be all the more difficult in his absence. In such endeavors, leaders matter. Rabin's tenure as Prime Minister demonstrated this clearly. Despite setbacks and ever present dangers, Rabin never allowed himself to become disillusioned with prospects for peace. He forged ahead. He marshalled support for what were initially unpopular, but nonetheless necessary, steps toward Arab-Israeli reconciliation. Rabin kept the process on track. The death of Yitzhak Rabin is clearly a blow to the peace process. However, Mr. President, his assassination is not a reflection of the fragility of peace he has helped bring to the Middle East. It is a reflection of the urgency with which we must work to consolidate that peace. We must remember that while leaders matter, it is their visions that are enduring. Yitzhak Rabin left to Israel and the Middle East, indeed to the world, a vision of reconciliation that will be his lasting legacy. Our greatest contribution to the memory of Yitzhak Rabin must not be our grief over his departure, but determination to ensure that his vision of peace and reconciliation becomes an enduring reality in the Middle East.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the Senate's passage of the Professional Boxing Safety Act represents the culmination of nearly 4 years of working to make professional boxing a safer sport for the young men who choose to enter the ring. In large part, these efforts owe a great deal to a boxer from my home State of Delaware, whose misfortune and subsequent hard work made a lot of this possible. That boxer is Dave Tiberi and I believe that both the Senate and the American public owe a debt of gratitude to Dave for the legislation we have adopted. On February 8, 1992, in a world title fight, Dave Tiberi lost a controversial split decision in Atlantic City to the International Boxing Federation's middleweight champion, James Toney. The ABC announcer described it as ``the most disgusting decision I have ever seen.'' As a result of that fight, I directed that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations undertake a comprehensive investigation of professional boxing, the first in the Senate in more than 30 years. Unfortunately, that investigation found that the sport's problems remained much as Senator Kefauver found them to be three decades earlier. First and foremost among all the problems facing the sport today, none is more important that protecting the [[Page S 16514]] health and safety of professional boxers. We work hard to protect our amateur boxers and take great pride in their accomplishments in the Olympics. Yet, when these and other young men step into the professional ranks, we deny them even the most basic health and safety protections such as minimum uniform national standards. Professional boxers are faced with a patchwork system of health and safety regulations that vary State by State, both by rule and enforcement. Along with my colleague, Senator Dorgan, I have worked to ensure that the legislation we have adopted does include minimum uniform national health and safety standards. This will ensure that every professional boxing match in the United States is conducted under these standards. Every professional boxer will know that a physician must be at ringside; that an ambulance must be available; and that promoters must provide medical insurance. I commend Senator McCain and Senator Bryan, the sponsors of S. 187, for including these health and safety protections in this legislation. Despite numerous lucrative offers, Dave Tiberi has never fought again. Instead, he has dedicated his efforts to reforming boxing and working with young people in Delaware. I believe that, in large part, without Dave Tiberi's work, we would not have passed this boxing reform legislation. Professional boxing is important not only to its millions of fans, but also because the sport creates opportunities for many young men who have few opportunities. We owe these young men a system outside the ring that works as hard to protect them as they do inside the ring. That is why I have worked to reform professional boxing and I commend my colleagues for adopting this important legislation.