William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we all owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Moynihan for his tireless efforts to educate this body and indeed the American people about the causes of poverty in modern society. Spanning four decades, Senator Moynihan has performed several roles in the effort to end poverty. Throughout his distinguished career, he has been a professor, a planner, an economist, a social scientist, an advocate, and an author, as well as a brilliant legislator and dedicated public servant. But most of all, he has been right about the causes of poverty amidst the wealthiest nation on earth. He has given us, chapter and verse, the reasons why the number of children receiving AFDC has increased threefold since a small group in the Office of Economic Opportunity mapped out the War on Poverty 30 years ago. Senator Moynihan predicted the growing tragedy of the American welfare system. He was right because he knew then, as he maintains today that there are consequences to behavior. But we are here today because knowing why something happens does not necessarily tell us how to modify the predictable results. In fact, we now have 30 years of experience which tells us that despite the best of intentions, the Federal Government cannot replace strong families. The needs of children and families cannot be reduced to mathematical diagrams. The wisdom of Solomon is rarely found in the Federal Register. Under the present welfare system, we now have over 9 million children receiving AFDC benefits. If we do nothing, the Department of Health and Human Services projects there will be 12 million children on AFDC within 10 years. That is what the present system will bring. This fact alone should embolden us to act in a dramatic way to change the status quo. Today, we have the choice between two different approaches to changing the welfare system. There are several important, fundamental differences between Senator Moynihan's proposal and the Republican legislation. Perhaps the most important difference is the role of the Federal Government. It is time to release the grasp of Washington which for too long has choked off the initiative and creativity of the States in answering the challenges of the welfare system. If the States remain dependent on Washington, they will not take the bold steps we need and should encourage to the vexing problems of our welfare system. The States do not need another Washington-based approach. They do not need another revision based on a faulty premise. Our block grant approach will free the 50 sovereign States to serve their needy citizens in the most effective manner possible. It is time to leave the past behind and place our confidence in the states to meet the challenges of the future.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, a major purpose of government is to provide an environment for economic growth--one in which jobs and opportunity bring security to our families and communities. History has shown us the blueprint for such an environment: low taxes. Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon slashed taxes 25 percent, ushering America into the roaring '20s. John Kennedy's tax cuts in the '60s created the longest peacetime economic expansion in history--that is up until President Reagan embraced Kemp-Roth in the 1980's. The result of Kemp-Roth, as my friend, Jack Kemp, recalls, was ``18 million new jobs and more than 4 million new businesses, an entrepreneurial boom unmatched in the 20th century.'' This is what history teaches. But as they say, that was then, and this is now. One after another, Americans have suffered tax increases-- each with the promise that it would eliminate the deficit. President Bush broke his pledge of ``no new taxes,'' cooperated in a budget summit, signed the largest tax increase in history at that time, and lost his reelection because of it. Then President Clinton, two years ago yesterday, signed his tax increase, which still earns the distinction as the largest in history. And now there is renewed talk of reneging on the $245 billion tax cut promised in the budget resolution that passed this spring. The irony, Mr. President, is that the tax cuts--whether they were the Mellon cuts, the Kennedy cuts, or Kemp-Roth--always produced windfalls for the Federal Treasury. As one well-respected economist pointed out, ``the Federal Government received hundreds of billions more tax dollars annually during the Reagan administration than ever before. That is because the gross national product grew by nearly 80 percent over the 8 years when Ronald Reagan was President. Uncle Sam's cut was a slightly lower percentage, but the pie itself was much bigger. That was the whole point of supply-side economics. Then why is the national debt now at an all-time high, measured in trillions of dollars, instead of mere billions as before? Because Congress spent even more hundreds of billions than the massive new tax receipts pouring into Washington. Without spending restraints, no amount of new taxes will ever balance the budget.'' And for those who believe cutting taxes only benefited the wealthy. Let the facts speak for themselves: In 1990, following Kemp-Roth, the wealthiest 5 percent of tax payers paid 43 percent of all taxes. In 1981, before the tax cuts, the wealthiest 5 percent was paying 36.4 percent. You see, Mr. President, there is nothing inconsistent with our objective to cut taxes and to balance the budget. Americans want a balanced budget. The United States has not had a balanced budget since 1969. And Americans know that you cannot go year to year spending more than you take in. They cannot do it with their checkbooks. And they believe Congress should not be able to do it, either. In fact, they feel so strongly about this issue that virtually every poll showed 70 percent to 80 percent of the country wanted the Balanced Budget Amendment approved and ratified by the States. Unfortunately, that was prevented from happening by roughly the same group of Senators who are now taking aim against our proposed $245 billion tax cut. These are--give or take a few--the same men and women who, 2 years ago, supported President Clinton in a historic tax increase. And where has that increase gotten us? The President said his increase would keep interest rates low. Today the prime rate is 2.75 percent higher than it was last year at this time. Treasury Bills, 30-year bonds and mortgage rates * * * they are all up. Beyond this, average wages and salaries for U.S. workers have fallen 2.3 percent from 1994 to 1995, the largest decline in 8 years, Fewer jobs are being created, economic growth has come to a standstill, and the dollar is down. This is where we are, Mr. President, and now the same people who brought you these statistics--the same people who voted against the American people on the balanced budget--are trying to kill a tax cut for the middle class--a tax cut that will offset President Clinton's record setting increase. The tax proposal they are trying to kill is positive and important for economic growth. Thirty-five million families, raising 52 million children, will pay lower taxes. Seventy-four percent of these families have incomes below $75,000. Families with children and incomes of less than $25,000 will pay no income tax at all. And the fact is, that 70 percent of all taxpayers who will benefit from the capital gains tax cut in our plan have incomes of less than $50,000. Mr. President, this is how we bring America back. And it should be a bipartisan effort. Mellon, Kennedy, Reagan--no one party has a monopoly on the key to economic growth. I believe we can work together. For this reason, I have been active in my efforts to restore the power of the individual retirement account. Toward this end, I have worked with former Senator Lloyd Bentsen and am now working with Senator John Breaux. In my efforts to reduce the threat of estate taxes on family-owned farms and businesses, Senator Pryor and others have joined with Senator Dole, me and Members on this side of the aisle. The magnitude and importance of the objective before us requires no less than our willing and cooperative effort. The American people deserve no less. They have paid too much in taxes. Promises to reduce the deficit have not been kept. Spending has continued to soar and government has grown overbearing and inefficient. We have proposed the first balanced budget in 26 years. The $245 billion tax cuts are completely paid for. Let us now work together to see these initiatives passed. In the strong economies and Treasury windfalls that came about from tax cuts in years gone by, we see our future. And working together, I believe we can achieve it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the Roth-Glenn amendment would strike the waiver that would free the FAA from being required to comply with Federal personnel and procurement policies. This waiver is bad policy; it sets a bad precedent; it is legislation of a most unfortunate type on an appropriation bill. With this waiver, the FAA could ignore Federal personnel and procurement policies and create whatever policies it sees fit. It could pay as little or as much as it wants; create new pensions; ignore such laws as competition in contracting. Make no mistake, this waiver would result in serious controversy and litigation. Mr. President, Senator Glenn and I are the ranking member and chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction on personnel and procurement policies. We stand ready to work with the FAA in reforming these policies, as we believe reform is necessary. But, we have received no request for any such waiver from the FAA. In fact, last year, we gave the FAA authority to test waivers of procurement laws. But, this bill proposes a blanket exemption before we know the results of that test. Moreover, the GAO found the FAA's problems are not the procurement or personnel laws, but a lack of adequate management. The FAA cannot properly define what it wants to buy, estimate its costs, or administer its contracts. If the Glenn-Roth amendment fails, mark my words, today is the day that the Senate gives birth to the next major procurement horror story. We are rewarding incompetent managers with more money and no accountability. We are putting both billions of dollars and lives at risk. I encourage my colleagues to defeat the motion to table this amendment. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with my Finance Committee colleagues, Mr. Baucus and Mr. Hatch, a bill to correct what I believe was a mistake made in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 relating to publicly traded partnerships, or PTP's, as they are commonly known. PTP's are limited partnerships traded as units on public stock exchanges or over the counter. They are regulated by the SEC comparably to other public companies. Many investors, large and small, find PTP units to be safe, liquid investments. The 1987 act included a change to the Tax Code which arbitrarily limited the future life of certain PTP's to no more than 10 years. The purpose of our amendment is to eliminate that change and permit this small group of PTP's that were in existence back in 1987 to continue operating as partnerships as long as they wish. We believe that a mistake was made in 1987. If the mistake is not corrected in the very near future, these companies will be forced to undertake an expensive and disruptive conversion to corporate form, or some other operating form. No public purpose will be served by such forced conversions. PTP's first came into being in the early 1980's as a new means to raise capital for industries that had traditionally done business in partnership form. At the time, a number of corporations decided that the PTP structure better suited their operations. A few years later, Congress became concerned that the opportunity to become a PTP might erode the corporate tax base and decided, in 1987, to limit the extent to which new PTP's could be created. The law restricted future PTP operating status to companies in the energy, real estate, and natural resources sectors. For reasons that were not clear at the time, and still are not clear from the committee reports explaining the 1987 act, all companies then operating as PTP's outside the protected sectors were to be ``sunsetted,'' or terminated, within 10 years. Unless the law is changed, this provision, sometimes referred to as the ``PTP grandfather provision,'' will punish 27 American companies who played by the rules. Unless changed, this provision of law will compel them to convert by January 1, 1998. Our amendment would stop this punitive process in its tracks. Our amendment recognizes the positive contribution that these companies make to their communities, to their employees, and to the unit holders. Our amendment is consistent with many precedents which have changed tax law prospectively, and left alone those who relied on prior law for major business decisions. Our amendment also strikes a blow for fairness. After all, companies that converted to PTP form went through a complex, expensive, and time-consuming process. In so doing, they relied on the expectation that they would be able to operate as partnerships as long as they wanted. If they ever wished to convert to corporate form, or to become a nontraded partnership, they could do so when it was in their best interests. Some firms have converted voluntarily during the intervening years for business reasons unrelated to the sunset. However, to force such a conversion arbitrarily is totally unfair, and will require the investment of significant resources and managerial time far better devoted to strengthening these companies. There were only about 120 PTP's in existence in 1987; nearly three- fourths of which were in lines of business untouched by the new restrictions. Today, their are still 27 ``grandfathered'' PTP's in operation. They are in such businesses as nursing homes, restaurants, hotels and motels, investment management and financial advisory services, cable television, home, and office services such as carpet cleaning, lawn maintenance and pest control, and even Macadamaia nuts. They operate in all 50 states and employ more than 225,000 people nationwide--from fewer than 200 people in Alaska, South Dakota, and Vermont, to more than 10,000 people in California, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. There are more than 300,000 unit holders nationwide from as few as 500 in North Dakota to as many as 30,000 in California. These are the people with the greatest stake in this amendment--the employees and unit holders of the affected PTP's. Unless our amendment is enacted into law, the value of units will decline. The investors will suffer--most of whom are average, middle-class Americans who purchased their PTP's, oftentimes through an individual retirement account, because of the attractive yield, safety, and liquidity. As PTP units decline in value, a company's ability to expand will be negatively affected and the employees will suffer. Employees who are also unit holders--tens of thousands of individuals nationwide--face a ``double whammy.'' I hope my colleagues will agree that this punitive provision of the tax code is unfair, counterproductive, and contrary to the objectives of capital formation and jobs growth. Our amendment would fix the problem, so I urge its inclusion in this year's tax bill.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today as one who has been a long- standing supporter of NATO. For this reason, I am a cosponsor of the Brown amendment, the NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995. Mr. President, no other issue is more crucial to European security than NATO's relationship with Central and Eastern Europe. Today, we are in the midst of an historical era, an era of transition, the so-called post-cold-war era. It is a phase in which the strategic landscape of Europe is particularly malleable. It is a phase that will not last forever and which will end sooner rather than later. How the alliance manages its relationship with the nations of this region during this period will determine whether or not Europe will ultimately benefit from an enduring and stable peace. Careful, gradual, but undeterred enlargement of NATO should be the geopolitical priority of America's Europe policy. The alliance is uniquely qualified to provide the institutional foundation for regional security and peace. No other institution, including the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation, combine the two necessary requisites to serve in this role: a transatlantic dimension and proven operational capability. The Brown amendment explicitly endorses and facilitates a process of NATO expansion. If passed, this amendment would authorize the President to establish programs to facilitate the integration of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary as well as other Central and Eastern European nations into the alliance. Passage of this amendment would be an important step toward establishing a system of European security consisting of two pillars: an enlarged NATO and a strategic partnership between the alliance and Russia. With the end of the Cold War, Central and Eastern Europe once again find themselves outside of any viable security structure. The region is, in essence, a security vacuum between NATO's eastern frontier and Russia. Both recent- and long-term history show us that the region's strategic vulnerability has been a source of instability on the continent--with calamitous consequences that drew the United States into two World Wars. Extending the alliance's membership to the nations of Central and Eastern Europe, beginning with the nations of Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, and Hungary, will help transform this region from a source of instability into a cornerstone of peace. NATO enlargement would help facilitate the economic and political integration of this region into the West. The absence of a stable security environment only exacerbates fears and insecurities that jeopardize the political and economic reform necessary for integration to occur. NATO enlargement would project greater stability into Eastern and Central Europe and thereby enable the [[Page S 12152]] region's nations to more confidently focus on their internal challenges. Mr. President, security is not an alternative to reform, but it is essential for reform to occur. I must add, Mr. President, that the adoption of this amendment would send a much-needed signal of American support to the nations of Central and Eastern Europe and the reform efforts within them. It has been over 5 years since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and nearly 5 years since the implosion of the Soviet Union. Many in Central and Eastern Europe have been disillusioned with the West and the United States for our failure to more aggressively embrace these nations into the transatlantic community. Mr. President, passage of this amendment would demonstrate the America's commitment to consolidating an enlarged Europe, and it would give more incentive to all the nations of Central and Eastern Europe to continue their reforms. Second, two great European powers, Germany and Russia, are now undergoing very complex and sensitive transformations. Their outcomes will be significantly shaped by the future of Central and Eastern Europe. The extension of NATO membership to Central and Eastern Europe, beginning with Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, and Hungary, would positively influence the evolution of these two great powers. Germany, as a consequence of the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and German reunification, has become more concerned about developments beyond its new eastern frontiers. And today, Germany is more capable of independently addressing her relations with Central and Eastern Europe. Failure to adequately realize the integration of this region into the West is likely to foster a more nationalist security policy in Germany. In fact, this is a fear that Bonn's politicians and experts openly articulate. NATO enlargement would further lock German interests into a transatlantic security structure and consolidate the positive role Bonn plays in European affairs. NATO enlargement would also assist Russia's democratic evolution. It would do so by enhancing Russia's own security and by bringing Europe closer to Russia. Of all of Europe's reborn nations, Russia is experiencing the most revolutionary and difficult transformation. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is adjusting to the unraveling of an empire and the return to frontiers dating back to the 16th century. By enhancing and reinforcing stability in Eastern Europe, NATO enlargement would make unrealistic the calls by Moscow's extremists for Russia's westward expansion. Greater stability along Russia's frontiers will enable Moscow to direct more of its energy toward the internal challenges of political and economic reform. There are two other geopolitical dangers consequent to the perpetuation of isolation and insecurity in Central and Eastern Europe: Isolation not only fosters the nationalization of the foreign and security policies of Germany and Russia, but also of the nations within the region. Additionally, Eastern Europe's institutional separation from Europe and the West certainly sustains Russia's sense of isolation and thereby risks revitalizing its historic sense of alienation from European affairs. These dynamics could well present unfortunate opportunities, if not incentives, for great power revanchism. Mr. President, allow me to address some of the key arguments being made against NATO enlargement: Moscow's sensitivities are frequently highlighted as arguments against NATO enlargement. Proponents of this view claim that because Russia perceives NATO enlargement as part of an effort to isolate her from the rest of Europe, we risk prompting a more aggressive and dangerous Russian foreign policy. It is absolutely essential that Russia not be given the false impression that NATO enlargement is designed to isolate Moscow from Europe. That is why I support the establishment of a strategic partnership between the alliance and Russia. This intent is reiterated clearly and forthrightly in the Brown amendment. At the same time we must not overreact to outdated Russian sensitivities at the expense of strategic realities and objectives central to the interests of the alliance, as well as the United States. The fact is that Russia is far from being an isolated nation. Today, Moscow benefits from special bilateral relationships with the nations of the transatlantic community, especially the United States and Germany. It is a member of the U.N. Security Council, an active participant of the OSCE, and has recently become a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace program. Russia is a chief recipient of foreign assistance from the United States and the European Union, not to mention the IMF and World Bank. In many ways, Russia enjoys far greater engagement with the West than is now enjoyed by any of our Central and East European neighbors. Let me emphasize that it will not be NATO enlargement that will shape Russia's relationship with the alliance, but Moscow's reaction to enlargement. If Moscow resists the process through intimidation or aggression, NATO enlargement will more likely be directed against Russia. On the other hand, if Russia respects the rights of other nations to determine their own geopolitical destinies, if Russia recognizes the objective benefits of NATO enlargement, and ultimately works with the alliance in this process, NATO enlargement will contribute to a broad process of engagement and integration that will bring Europe and Russia closer together. A second argument against NATO enlargement is that it risks creating new and destabilizing lines within Central and Eastern Europe. The fact is that our legislation works to eliminate lines from a bygone era by replacing them with a process of inclusion reaching out to all the nations of Central and Eastern Europe. Those nations that would not be in the first group of states admitted to NATO would benefit in two ways: These nations would end up less isolated from the Alliance. They would no longer be left on the distant fringes of a gray zone in European security. Geographically, they would be closer to NATO, if not bordering the alliance. Most importantly, they would be part of a region being actively integrated into the West. A third argument one hears against our legislation is that it smacks of American unilateralism in Europe and would undermine NATO cohesion. Mr. President, this legislation endorses a vision of European security. It does not impose it upon our allies. It in no way undermines the Washington Treaty and its chapters governing the accession of new members. It does require the President to undertake programs that will help the nations of Central and Eastern Europe prepare themselves for the responsibilities of NATO membership. I can think of no European Ally that would oppose any of these programs. By enabling the nations of Central and Eastern Europe to more effectively cooperate with the Allies, we are assisting the interests of all our Allies. Mr. President, let me close by emphasizing that NATO enlargement is not a unique historical step. It has already occurred on three separate occasions since 1949 with nations whose levels of democratic development at that time are clearly matched by that found today among the nations of Central and Eastern Europe. Enlargement is a process for which the alliance has always been geared. Indeed, article 10 of the Washington Treaty provides for the enlargement of the alliance to any European state ``in a position to further the principals of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.'' Mr. President, current policy is overly concerned with Russia's psychological well-being and insufficiently focused on central objectives. America's policies toward Europe must be structured to shape a strategic landscape that enhances economic, political, and military stability in all parts of Europe. That should be our national interest--and that is the intent of the NATO Participation Act Amendments.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, sections 350 and 351 of the bill now before the Senate would exempt the Federal Aviation Administration from all Federal procurement and personnel laws. While I understand and share in the committee's desire to reform the operations of the Federal Government, I strongly disagree with the approach embodied in these sections. In fact, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I am working on a comprehensive reform of Government management structures and procedures. So while I support restructuring and reform, I join with Senators Glenn, Cohen, Levin, and Pryor in proposing an amendment that would strike sections 350 and 351. I want to specifically address the need for procurement reform and the approach taken by the bill. First, I agree with the need for acquisition reform, however, the laws are not primarily the cause of the problems at the FAA. The Federal Aviation Administration's troubles stem not from the constraints of Federal law but from poor program management decisions and lax management. In its reports on high risk, the General Accounting Office cited the FAA's air traffic control modernization project as a prime example of the failure of civilian agencies to improve contract management. The GAO stated the project ``* * * failed because FAA did not recognize the technical complexity of the effort, realistically estimate the resources required, adequately oversee its contractors' activities, or effectively control system requirements.'' In 1992, the GAO reported on another FAA program, the microwave landing system. The GAO found the FAA's decision to move forward was premature ``* * * because the capabilities and benefits of the [new system] may be provided by emerging alternative systems''--a failure to adequately define program requirements. The GAO also observed that ``* * * the agency was committing an insufficient level of resources [for development]''. Last February, the GAO's report on a third program, the Safety Performance Analysis System, concluded that ``* * * FAA's current cost estimates for * * * software are subjective, not supported by verifiable analysis, and therefore may not be reliable.'' Mr. President, these problems cannot be attributed to either the personnel or acquisition laws. Rather, they are a result of poor management. Problems of this type can not be effectively addressed by exempting the agency experiencing them from laws that affect related activities of an agency. Moreover, the FAA's problems are no different from other agencies. New weapon systems and virtually every major Federal computer system are experiencing large cost and schedule overruns, and technology is out of date by the time they will be fielded. The primary causes of the problems are poor program management and bureaucratic incentives. Consequently, the data suggest that the FAA will experience procurement problems whether or not the procurement laws are waived. Mr. President, the current laws were put in place to address critical issues, such as how do contractors deal with the Government in executing a contract or getting paid. Without such system of transactions, there will be a proliferation of litigation on every aspect of the relationship between the FAA and its contractors. The result is that the FAA procurement will grind to a halt. The Competition in Contracting Act was created because sole-source contracts were driving costs of government contracts skyhigh and delivering poor quality products. Given the FAA's management problems, I am very concerned that lives will be at risk without the checks and balances provided by the procurement rules. I would also like to emphasize that we continue to streamline the procurement system, including special authorities for the FAA. Last year's Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act removed many barriers to Government procurement of commercial items and services. It added streamlined procurement procedures and provided pay-for-performance incentives, which should both make it easier to acquire leading technologies and improve management incentives. Why should these be removed? Last Friday, the Senate passed Senator Cohen's amendment to the Defense authorization bill that will get rid of the so-called Brooks act and implement results-oriented management procedures. The Governmental Affairs, Armed Services, and Small Business Committees are working together to produce additional acquisition reforms. Our bill will be ready at the end of September. Mr. President, in last year's procurement reform bill, special procurement authority was provided to the Administrator of the FAA to test waivers of each of the procurement laws that the appropriations bills identified. Why have a blanket exemption before we know the results of the test program? What additional flexibility is required? As with the waiver of the existing procurement laws, equally troubling is section 350 of the bill which waives most provisions of title 5, the Civil Service personnel laws. This section would allow the FAA to unilaterally set up an entirely new personnel system, which sets up a terrible precedent for personnel policy reform. Clearly there is a need for a complete overhaul of our civil service system. A comprehensive reform package is something that I have a deep interest in moving through the Governmental Affairs Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over personnel and procurement laws. However, this provision would start us down the path of a piecemeal approach for civil service reform and allow for a completely new personnel system including a new pay structure, pension and health benefit formulations, hiring and firing practices. Mr. President, there is no documentation or data to support such a drastic approach. A blanket waiver of Federal law is a dangerous precedent to set in an appropriations spending bills. I urge my colleagues to support the Roth-Glenn amendment to strike. Mr. President, I yield back the floor. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. Reserving the right to object, am I on the list?

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

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I say to my distinguished colleague that I have no knowledge of such a request from the FAA.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I shall be brief because the hour is growing late. But I think it is important for the record to clearly show that the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 gave the Secretary of Transportation authority to test alternatives and innovative procurement procedures in carrying out acquisitions for one of the modernization programs under the Air Force capital investment plan. I point out that in part of this legislation, there is permitted a waiver of procurement regulations. So the point I want to make is that authority last year was granted the Secretary of Transportation to take action irrespective of the procurement rules and regulations. Unfortunately, I would also point out that early this year the GAO, in a February 1995 high-risk series, pointed out that the air traffic control modernization project, which covers all parts of the $36 billion effort to overhaul the Nation's air traffic control system, has failed because FAA did not recognize the technical complexity of the effort, realistically estimate the resources required, and oversee contractors' activities or effectively control system requirements. So opportunity has been given but, unfortunately, the management of those efforts has not been successful. Mr. President, I yield the floor knowing that the chairman wants to make a motion to table. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Dole, Senator Packwood, and my other colleagues in introducing this comprehensive welfare reform legislation, S. 1120, America's Work and Family Opportunities Act of 1995. The American people know our welfare system is fatally flawed. The present welfare system is not serving the best interests of either the beneficiaries or the taxpayers. S. 1120 is a bold initiative that will help prevent even more Americans from falling into the trap of dependency. Mr. President, in 1965, the average monthly number of children receiving aid to families with dependent children was 3.3 million; in 1992, there were 9.3 million children receiving AFDC benefits. While the number of children receiving AFDC increased nearly threefold between 1965 and 1992, the total [[Page S 11804]] number of children in the United States aged 0 to 18 has declined by 5.5 percent. The Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that 12 million children will receive AFDC benefits within 10 years. To do nothing to prevent this growing tragedy is unacceptable. Congress has created a confused and confusing welfare system which rewards idleness and punishes work. At a recent hearing I chaired on welfare reform, former South Carolina Governor, Carroll Campbell, testified that his office found a family in which four generations were dependent upon the welfare system in which no one had worked. That is a system which does not protect children. That is a system which is cruel and heartless. Properly understood, welfare reform is about reforming government. Under our present system, no one is accountable for results. One of the basic flaws in the system is that there is always someone else to blame for failure. More than 90 Federal programs administered by 11 separate Federal agencies provide education, child care, and other services to young children from low-income families. The Department of Agriculture administers 14 food assistance programs for low-income individuals. Yet the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Health and Human Services also run separate food programs. There are 163 Federal programs scattered across 15 Federal agencies providing employment and training assistance. Let us be clear, however, that the individuals in need of assistance will still receive it. Children will still be fed. Child care will still be provided. Individuals with disabilities will still be provided with the full range of services they need. This legislation presents the opportunity to restore the proper role of the States to consolidate funding from many of these separate programs and design their own solutions. Under the present system, for example, a low-income mother with 2 children may need to visit several different offices to obtain benefits from 17 different programs. I firmly believe the States can improve the quality of services at lower costs to the taxpayers. Mr. President, to be successful in welfare reform, we must change the structural status quo. The transformation of these programs into block grants will yield tremendous savings over time. It costs $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 alone, another $3 billion of the taxpayers' money is wasted. Some of the smaller categorical programs have administrative costs as high as 40 percent of the cost of the benefits. The welfare system is a complex array of about 80 means-tested programs which provide not only cash assistance, but also medical care, food, housing, education and training, and social services. In this fiscal year, Federal and State governments will spend approximately $387 billion on these programs. It is clear that the failures of the current welfare system are not caused by a lack of money, but rather by the structure of the system itself. Here is what the General Accounting Office recently said about this collection of programs: The many means-tested programs are costly and difficult to administer. On one hand, these programs sometimes overlap one another; on the other hand, they are often so narrowly focused that gaps in services hinder clients. We note that although advanced computer technology is essential to efficiently running the programs, it is not being effectively developed or used. Due to their size and complexity, many of these programs are inherently vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. We also point out that some of our work has shown that the welfare system is often difficult for clients to navigate. Finally, administrators have not articulated goals and objectives for some programs and have not collected data on how well the programs are working. At best, we have created a masterpiece of mediocrity. But I think it is much worse. Government has trivialized what it has professed to esteem, specifically family and work. The welfare system which was designed to protect children has failed to consider the consequence of idleness. Thirty years of experience have ratified what many of us have known all along--Government programs and our welfare system cannot replace stable families. Perhaps the greatest mistakes the Federal Government has made during this period is to act as if family life can be reduced to a mathematical diagram and that the wisdom of Solomon can be reproduced in the Federal Register. The moment to truly change our welfare system is here and now. It has been said that the first act of common sense is to recognize the difference between a cloud and a mountain. It is time to recognize that the system created to end poverty has helped to bring more poverty. It is time to recognize that the cost of the system is excessive and wasteful. The American people clearly see that Washington has failed. And it is time we act accordingly. True reform has been quietly evolving in the States. Our objectives should be to unleash the latent creativity of these States. We need to test new approaches, to experiment with new methods that seek to address the varying conditions to be found in our 50 States. That is what the Dole-Packwood bill does, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this morning, leader time has been reserved, and the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 4, the welfare bill, for the purposes of debate only until the hour of 12:30 today. At 12:30, the Senate will recess until the hour of 2:15 today for the weekly policy conferences to meet. Rollcall votes can be expected during today's session on or in relation to the welfare bill or possibly the Department of Defense authorization bill. All Senators should anticipate a late session this evening in order to make progress on a number of items prior to the August recess.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the amendment just introduced by Senator Cohen, myself and others will make a big step toward reforming the way the Government buys and uses information technology. The Federal Government will spend $27 billion this year on information technology, and the GAO has reported to me that much of it will be wasted unless significant reforms are made. I want to congratulate Senator Cohen for his leadership in investigating the problems in the Government's acquisition of information technology. I also want to recognize Senator Cohen for the clarity of his vision and for his cooperation in working with me to develop this important amendment. Mr. President, there is no disagreement about the compelling need for reform in this area. The heart of this issue is that the Federal Government is not using computers to fix its outdated management practices. In January, the GAO reported to me that Federal managers do not have the essential information needed to do their jobs, despite spending more than $200 billion over the last 12 years on computers. The problem is that far too often, agencies buy computers just to have one on each person's desk. The agencies buy computers like a junk food junkie buys bacon double cheese burgers and candy bars. There's lots of fat and sugar, but little healthy substance. There is a more subtle issue here that needs to be highlighted. Modern organizations and management processes are required before computers can yield meaningful cost savings and capability improvements. If Government does not make the necessary structural and process changes, then the $27 billion in spending on computers will be for naught. All we will have achieved is inserting 1990's technology into a 1950's organization. We will have several hundred billion dollars of new computers but no corresponding increase in capability. Mr. President, instead of helping to solve problems, the Government process for buying and managing computer technology has become the problem. Its reliance on a tangle of redtape and bureaucracy strangles every effort to streamline and modernize Government operations. We must shift the bureaucracy from reliance on overburdened procedures and reports that no one reads; we must focus on results. Numerous reports have documented this fact. GAO, the General Services Administration, the Office of Management and Budget and others have all found that these computer buys are poorly planned, take far too long, cost too much money and all too often produce systems that simply don't work. Once delivered, these systems are managed using practices equally ineffective. Mr. President, GAO reported to me last January that developments in re-engineering and modern technology offer huge opportunities to reduce costs and improve services. Yet, the Federal sector has largely failed to seize upon the moment. For example, GAO has found that a veteran has to wait an average of 151 days, nearly 4 months, to get paid by the Veteran's Administration for an original compensation claim. After committing nearly $700 million for computers and equipment to fix this problem, the waiting time actually increased! It seems the agency failed to set performance goals for its new equipment and did not consider whether or not its claims process could be improved before being automated. By October 1994, claims processing time had gone up to 228 days. This is unbelievable and unconscionable! In a separate report provided to me just this past Monday, GAO advises that eleven federal agencies have problems with information management or systems development that are serious enough to be listed as high risk programs. GAO explained that ``[t]he major reason for these problems has been the lack of a sound process for selecting which IT initiatives to fund and for overseeing their development.'' It is precisely because of the great significance of this issue that I joined in developing this amendment. Mr. President, this amendment strikes at the heart of these problems by repealing the so-called Brooks Act which has controlled the way government buys and manages information technology for the last 30 years. The Brooks Act never worked as it was intended. Its reliance upon the submission of reams of paperwork through layers of bureaucracy has not worked in the past. And, its tight bureaucratic controls are clearly not relevant to today, with information technology advancing exponentially in a highly competitive market. Our amendment re-engineers this process, replacing red tape with a reliance on thorough, up-front investment planning and hands-on management practices which focus on bottom line results. The new process is modeled on the best practices used by America's most successful businesses. That model requires Government managers to focus like a laser on anticipating difficulties and then fixing them before they become problems. The amendment enables government agencies to accomplish these goals without additional paperwork or bureaucracy. Yet, this new process preserves the advantages and safeguards embodied in the Competition in Contracting Act. Nevertheless, Mr. President, I have four major concerns that must be more fully addressed than the current amendment will permit. First, the amendment may be interpreted as consolidating bid protests affecting information technology along with those from all other procurement. I am not satisfied that the case for such dramatic change has been made. There is much debate about this kind of consolidation and several alternative approaches have been proposed. I intend to fully consider each of these and will keep an open mind during the next 2 months, as I work on a comprehensive procurement reform bill. Second, the current amendment does not address the excessive layers of bureaucracy in the Federal buying system which hang like a dead weight around the necks of Government program managers. This is a government-wide problem not unique to information technology and not addressed by this amendment. Third, I believe that we must do a better job of educating and training the entire acquisition workforce--not just those involved in information technology. I do not agree with those in the administration who believe that we can fix acquisition horror stories with an interagency review team. It is no replacement for well trained program managers, who have the skills and experience to prevent horror stories from occurring in the first place. Lastly, I am convinced that we must move boldly to dismantle the existing network of perverse personnel incentives which strangle the entrepreneurial spirit of Government program managers. We must move to paying people for good performance, rather than for growing the size of their program. Mr. President, while the current amendment highlights important issues of good management in Government, we know that most of these problems are not unique to information technology. They beg a broader solution. Happily, last year's acquisition reform bill established the framework for solving these matters. This framework simply needs to be strengthened. To achieve that purpose, Mr. President, the Governmental Affairs Committee, in cooperation with the Armed Services and Small Business Committees, has reassembled the bi-partisan staff-level working group which produced last year's round of substantive acquisition reform. Our group has been charged with reviewing the entire spectrum of Government acquisition. We are assessing all acquisition reform legislation currently pending and have received input from many other sources. The end result of our efforts will be a broadly-gauged new bill which calls for major Governmentwide acquisition reform. We plan to move that bill forward in the fall with the intent of enacting a Governmentwide comprehensive acquisition reform bill in the next several months.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment of Senator Grassley to restore funding for the Administrative Conference of the United States. Because I am, and have been, a strong proponent of reducing the size of government, let me take a moment to explain why I think we should restore life to this tiny agency. We have reached the point where, now more than ever, there is widespread consensus that the administrative process must be reformed and streamlined. The Administrative Conference is the only Government agency whose sole mission and expertise is directed to improving administrative procedure. And the Administrator Conference is a unique source of nonpartisan advice and assistance to Congress and the agencies on how to make the regulatory process more efficient, more flexible, and more rational. The supporters of ACUS comprise a virtual ``Who's Who'' of administrative law from across the political spectrum. Indeed, ACUS is especially effective in carrying out its mission because it achieves a unique synergy of expertise from government, the private sector, academia, and the public interest community. As we all know, results matter, and ACUS has had notable success in reducing the inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and delay in the regulatory process. These successes repay ACUS' small budget--$1.8 million--many times over. To paraphrase S. 343, the benefits clearly justify the costs. For example, ACUS has produced massive savings in money, time, and agency resources by implementing alternative dispute resolution. Data from five agencies show that the use of alternative dispute resolution has saved $13.8 million for just these few agencies in 1994. With ACUS' help, the use of alternative dispute resolution is expanding rapidly. It has been estimated that a recently adopted ACUS proposal to change the appeals process saves the Social Security administrative process $85 each year. It would be penny-wise and pound-foolish to let the Administrative Conference expire. Furthermore, it is now--when we are proposing the most comprehensive changes to the Administrative Procedure Act since it was written 50 years ago--that we need the advice and assistance of the Administrative Conference more than ever. As small as ACUS is, it has provided important support for the movement toward regulatory reform and for alternatives to the litigation morass that burdens our Nation. Many ACUS recommendations have been incorporated into the regulatory reform proposals we are considering, including S. 343. Indeed, section 8 of S. 343 provides for ACUS to study and advise Congress on the operation of the risk assessment requirements and the operation of the Administrative Procedure Act. My regulatory reform bill, S. 291, contained a similar provision. So did the Glenn bill. As complex and far reaching as the current regulatory reform proposals are, we will need the kind of independent expertise that ACUS provides if we want to carry out regulatory reform. Because I want to reform the regulatory process and to make government more efficient, I support Senator Grassley's amendment to fund the Administrative Conference. I urge my colleagues to support this worthy effort. amendment no. 2250 Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2250) for Ms. Mikulski: At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section: Sec. . Service performed during the period January 1, 1984, through December 31, 1986, which would, if performed after that period, be considered service as a law enforcement officer, as defined in section 8401(17)(A)(i)(II) and (B) of title 5, United States Code, shall be deemed service as a law enforcement officer for the purposes of chapter 84 of such title.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, a $1\1/2\ billion vote deserves serious consideration by this body in this time of fiscal crisis. Throughout the defense budget debates in the 6 years since the cold war ended, I have been routinely amazed--and disappointed--that the Senate cannot bring itself to terminate one of the most expensive, outdated, poorly managed, cold war programs in the entire budget--namely, the Seawolf submarine program. Mr. President, there are several reasons to support the amendment that Senator McCain and I are offering. First, the Seawolf is a cold war weapon with no modern mission. It was originally conceived as the ultimate United States weapon against Soviet ballistic missile submarines. It would operate 1,000 feet beneath the seas, quieter than the seas themselves. Its special sensors and computer systems would detect Soviet nuclear submarines well before the Seawolf could be observed. If this Nation were still in the grip of the cold war, we would probably be justified in procuring further Seawolf submarines. But, the cold war is over, and the system has no mission in the post-cold war world. Consequently, it should be terminated immediately. Second, this program is poorly managed and the problems are such that I have little faith in the Navy's estimate of how much money the taxpayers will be required to spend. The General Accounting Office now says that average cost of the first two subs will be well over $5 billion. Moreover, there are significant cost overruns in virtually every aspect of this program. According to the GAO, the design contract was overrun by 131 percent, the production contract on the first sub is overrun by about 80 percent, and the average unit cost is overrun by about 250 percent. Giving this hog more feed is not going to make it any leaner. The design for the first submarine is currently in its fifth revision and is more than half a million hours behind schedule, even though production began several years ago. With the proposed design changes in the SSN-23, additional delays and cost overruns are inevitable. A third reason to terminate the Seawolf program is to restore accountability for the Navy's poor acquisition management. There is no incentive for industry to perform efficiently as long as funding is guaranteed. The guise of the submarine industrial base should not remove the Navy's accountability for the Seawolf's 250 percent cost overrun. This program is a dud, and we ought to let it fizzle out. A fourth reason to kill the Seawolf program is that funding a third Seawolf submarine takes money away from more important needs. It is untenable to require service men and women to live off food stamps so that $100,000 a year defense contractors can remain employed in an endeavor that does not add to our national security. We have all heard stories of shortfalls in military readiness, due to lack of funds. A fifth reason not to fund a third Seawolf submarine is that there are more cost-effective means of protecting the industrial base. One alternative approach to maintaining the submarine industrial base is allowing it to work on commercial projects, which Electric Boat is currently pursuing and should do so more aggressively in the future. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the costs of other alternatives, such as overhauls and modernization efforts, are much less than building and maintaining a third Seawolf. We must also keep in mind that engineering expertise is being protected by work on the new attack submarine and design changes on the first two Seawolves. Furthermore, the submarine deactivation workload will ensure an industrial base well into the future. Finally, the Navy announced its intent to increase its reliance on commercial technologies in building the new attack submarine, and reduce its reliance on the submarine industrial base. Several years ago, when Senator McCain and I have moved to stop funding for the Seawolf, we garnered very few votes. Then, 2 days later, President Bush terminated the program in recognition that the cold war was over. Time and again, the program has been kept alive for political, rather than military, purposes. We can no longer afford to spend $1.5 billion for such reasons. I encourage my colleagues to vote to support our amendment.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in the new hit movie, The Net, private information is hacked into via the Internet, turning a young woman's life upside-down. While The Net is a work of fiction, it is based on a factual premise: that information held in computer networks is susceptible to intrusion. Unknown crackers routinely scan government and private sector databases for military research, confidential personal information and other sensitive data. This jeopardizes our Nation's security and our individual privacy. A report issued today by the Office of Technology Assessment clearly states the problems facing the Federal Government in ensuring the integrity and usefulness of America's information infrastructure. Its title is Issue Update on Information Security and Privacy in Network Environments. Securing public and private databases from the mischievous and criminal elements of the computer community is not a simple task. The sheer number of break-ins and the electronic nature of this crime makes prosecution, and often even detection, almost impossible. It is neither affordable nor effective to prosecute each cracker. Defending the data and computer systems from infiltration has emerged as the most cost- effective and smartest way to deal with this problem. The most recent issue of Defense News underscores the need for secure databases, as opposed to stronger enforcement. In it, Paul Strassmann, a distinguished visiting professor for information warfare at the National Defense University is quoted as saying: ``new laws are not likely to stop on-line criminals because the professionals are undetectable.'' Against this kind of threat, prevention in the form of securing the data is more effective than prosecution. Fortunately, we have already laid the groundwork to meet the challenge of securing sensitive Federal data. The Computer Security Act of 1987 established an approach for protecting the Federal Government's unclassified but sensitive data, and developed guidelines and standards to promote Federal data protection. However, the Computer Security Act needs to be updated and enforced for it to prevent thousands of computer break-ins currently occurring annually. The costs of not facing these challenges are enormous. As Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, my primary goal is the restructuring of the Federal Government to be smaller, more effective and less expensive. Accomplishing this goal depends on automation, and will require enhanced protection of computer databases and networked information. OTA's report highlights why the Governmental Affairs Committee must update the Computer Security Act for today's networked society.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce two temporary duty suspension bills. It is my understanding that they are noncontroversial. I am introducing these on behalf of AgrEvo, a company located in my home State of Delaware, because they will help improve the company's overall competitive posture by lowering its costs of doing business. While I recognize that it is exceedingly difficult to enact temporary duty suspensions, the administration has authority to proclaim certain tariff reductions in the context of additional progress in the WTO to harmonize chemical tariffs at lower levels. I urge the administration to achieve such progress, particularly through expanding the participation of other countries in the WTO's chemical tariff harmonization agreement. This would allow the administration to address growing demands for new duty suspensions on chemical products by utilizing existing tariff proclamation authority.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today, I am sponsoring an amendment that would restore $37 million into solar and renewable energy programs. The overall DOE energy supply account was cut 15.6 percent, while the overall renewable accounts were cut by 27 percent. My amendment would bring into line the budget reduction of the solar and renewables program to the percentage reduction level of the other DOE energy supply accounts. This amendment would restore funding for solar and renewable energy programs at the expenses of overhead. It would transfer 37 million from DOE's departmental administration to solar and renewable energy programs. This represents a 10-percent cut in DOE's overhead. Recent studies show that we need to reduce bureaucracy, cut overhead burdens and costs to have more effective and efficient R&D programs. The Galvin Task Force Report, recently commissioned by the Department of Energy, recommended that bold action be taken regarding the reduction of administrative oversight. The report further states, DOE should be able to accomplish a substantial reduction in oversight without reducing the dollars spent directly on R&D scientists and engineers. In addition, the Yergin Task Force also recently recommended that DOE reduce total energy R&D costs by cutting directly at administrative compliance and overhead costs. This amendment would restore funding for solar and renewable energy programs by cutting administrative costs identified in these reports. I believe that funding renewable energy programs is an important issue to our Nation. Renewable energy programs promise to supply economically competitive and commercially viable energy, while also assisting our Nation in reducing greenhouse gases and oil imports. The Nation should be looking toward alternative forms and sources of energy, not taking a step backward by cutting funding for these programs. My own State of Delaware has a long tradition in solar energy. In 1972, the University of Delaware established one of the first photovoltaic laboratories in the Nation. The university has been instrumental in developing solar photovoltaic energy, the same type of energy that powers solar watches and calculators. Delaware has a major solar energy manufacturer, Astro Power, which is now the fastest growing manufacturer of photovoltaic cells in the world. In collaboration with the University of Delaware and Astro Power, Delaware's major utility--Delmarva Power & Light--has installed an innovative solar energy system that has successfully demonstrated the use of solar power to satisfy peak electrical demand. Through this collaboration, my State has demonstrated that solar energy technology can be an economically competitive and commercially viable energy alternative for the utility industry. It is vital that we continue to manufacture these solar cell products with the high performance, high quality, and low costs required to successfully compete worldwide. Investment in Department of Energy solar and renewable energy programs has put us on the threshold of explosive growth. Continuation of the present renewable energy programs is required to achieve the goal of a healthy photovoltaic industry in the United States. While the solar energy industries might have evolved in some form on the their own, the Federal investment has accelerated the transition from the laboratory bench to commercial markets in a way that has already accrued valuable economic benefits to the Nation. The solar energy industries--like Astro Power--have already created thousands of jobs and helped to reduce our trade deficit through exports of solar energy systems overseas, mostly to developing nations, where two billion people are still without access to electricity. International markets for solar energy systems are virtually exploding, due to several key market trends. Most notably, solar energy is already one of the lowest cost options available to developing countries that cannot afford to build large, expensive centralized power generation facilities with elaborate distribution systems. The governments of Japan, Germany, and Australia are investing heavily in aggressive technology and market development in partnership with their own solar energy industries. Until recently, Japan and Germany held the lead in world market share for photovoltaics; the United States has only recently recaptured international market dominance. Cutting funding for commercializing these technologies would have a chilling effect on the U.S. industry's ability to compete on an international scale in these billion-dollar markets of today and tomorrow. The employment potential of renewables represents a minimum of 15,000 new jobs this decade with nearly 120,000 the next decade. It is imperative that this Senate support solar and renewable energy technologies and be a partner to an energy future that addresses our economic needs in an environmentally acceptable manner. My State has done and will continue to do its part. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will look to the future and do their part in securing a safe and reliable energy future by supporting this amendment. Amendment No. 2054

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we've all heard the axiom that the cultivation of the mind is the secret to a happy and productive life. Education not only provides untold benefits to the individual, but to society as a whole. In fact, the worth of education is increasing. In 1980, a male college graduate made about 30 percent more than a male high school graduate. By 1988, he made about 60 percent more. In just 8 years, the premium for a college degree doubled--in comparison with a high school diploma. On a social level, education is fundamental to the future well-being and competitiveness of America. Not only are well-educated men and women able to make greater contributions to our economy, but they make unquantifiable contributions to business, academia, and agriculture, as well as to our technical and communications resources. The irony, Mr. President, is that while the value of higher education is increasing, the confidence of Americans to receive a higher education is declining. Polls shows that our countrymen are less and less optimistic about their ability to receive higher education. A full 55 percent think paying for college is more difficult now that it was 10 years ago, and 66 percent say it will be even more difficult 10 years now. Sixty percent believe even qualified people can't afford college. The solution? Eighty percent of those polled say the best solution is to have financial support provided through work opportunities. This compares to 43 percent who call for more direct grants to students and even 62 percent for those who want more money for student loans. The legislation I am cosponsoring today with Senator Moynihan, is a welcomed and needed measure to encourage and assist employers to provide educational opportunities for their employees. What we seek to do with this legislation is permanently extend the exclusion for employer provided educational assistance. The exclusion, section 127, expired on December 31, 1994--7 months ago--and unless it is extended, employees will be taxed on their education benefits. They will owe both Federal and FICA taxes on the assistance they have received. Mr. President, section 127 is legislation that has been approved before. We know that it is needed--that it is important. Congress has passed it in an effort to increase the participation of employers in assisting in the education of their employees. Under previous congressional action, tax-free benefits were made available for employees who wanted to improve their knowledge and skill in job- related studies. Beyond this, the law also allowed employees to participate in other studies. The only exclusions involved education in sports, games and hobbies, unless those studies were directly associated with their employment needs or were part of an overall degree program. Congress has already established the need for section 127 and provided the legislation. What Senator Moynihan and I are doing now is simply making it permanent. Our bill will allow employees to permanently receive up to $5,250 annually in undergraduate tuition or similar educational benefits from their employers on a tax-free basis. It will be effective retroactively, going back to January 1, 1995--thus taking care of the 7 months that have lapsed since section 127 expired. I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Moynihan and me in passing this bill, reminding them of the importance of education as it pertains to the future of America. As Daniel Webster said when he stood on the Senate floor many years ago: If we work marble, it will perish; if we work upon brass, time will efface it; if we rear temples, they will crumble into dust; but if we work upon immortal minds . . . we are then engraving upon tablets which no time will efface, but will brighten and brighten to all eternity.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Subcommittee on Post Office and Civil Service, of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold a hearing on August 2, 1995. The Postmaster General of the United States will present the annual report of the Postal Service. The hearing is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Pat Raymond, staff director, at 224-2254. special committee on aging

Mr. ROTH

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

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