Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am most pleased to join with the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in introducing, by request, legislation intended to reform the operation of VA's health care program. This legislation places into statutory language the eligibility reform proposal of the many veterans' service organizations who each year prepare and submit to the Congress the so called independent budget. The successful operation of the VA health care system has become one of the most pressing issues faced by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Congress. Many observers feel that changing the current priorities for health care is the certain key to resolving the problems faced by both VA and the veterans it serves. The proposal we introduce today is one of at least five different proposals before the Congress and introduction of this legislation should be viewed as neither endorsement nor opposition to this specific proposal. I join in introduction of the legislation in order to put before the Congress both the proposal and the ideas upon which it is based. I plan to chair committee hearings on the issue later this spring. Both the committee's hearings and legislative process will be much improved if we can view this proposal in legislative format. As a life member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, one of the organizations that has prepared the proposal, I understand how important this issue is to America's veterans, the Congress, to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and to the American people who must fund whatever decision is reached by the Congress. I thank my fine personal friend from West Virginia for the constructive and active role that he played as chairman of the Veterans' Committee and continues to play as ranking minority member. He has been most helpful and courteous to me. I always look forward to working with him and the members of the committee as we work together to address the difficult questions we face concerning veterans' health care and the future structure of the Veterans Health Administration.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise to comment briefly today, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, on an important and, I think, noncontroversial piece of legislation to extend the effective dates of certain legal authorities under which the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] operates. The extension of each, and all, of legal authorities which are before the Senate today has previously been approved by the Senate. Specifically, this body approved the extension of each of these provisions on January 5, 1996, when it approved S.991, as amended. The Senate then substituted the text of S. 991, as so approved, into H.R. 2353, and sent that legislation back to the other body. We anticipated at that time that the House would approve these noncontroversial provisions--and, indeed, the House has approved them. The House, however, has made certain additional amendments to the Senate-passed bill which necessitate further consideration of the bill by this body. To summarize, this is what the House has done to change the Senate- approved bill: first, it made permanent certain authorities pertaining to VA's home loan program that the Senate would have extended, on an interim basis, for 2 years only; second, it extended the maximum allowable timeframe for which VA may enter into a particular lease transaction in order to facilitate the construction of a power plant on the grounds of the VA Medical Center in San Antonio, TX; and, third, with respect to certain programs being extended by the Senate-approved bill, the House amendments would either modify existing reporting requirements or, in three instances, impose new reporting requirements on VA, in order that the Congress might be in a better position in the future to decide whether to extend these provisions again. Mr. President, these amendments are not objectionable. I will only comment at more length on one of them: the House amendment to make permanent VA's authority to guarantee home mortgage loans with interest rates set by the marketplace--instead of by VA officials. I heartily support this amendment. Three years ago, the Congress enacted legislation to authorize VA, for the first time, to guarantee home mortgage loans having interest rates set by the marketplace. Before 1992, the maximum allowable interest rate that a veteran could be charged on a VA-guaranteed home loan was set by the VA. As I explained in my floor statement on January 5, 1996, this attempt to ``protect'' veterans caused market disruptions and did not result in any real benefit to veteran home purchasers. In cases where the VA-set ``ceiling'' rate was set too low, home sellers typically upped the price of the house to be sold or, worse, they refused to deal with veteran-purchasers. When the Senate approved an extension in VA's authority to guarantee loans with market-set interest rates on January 5, I said that the Committee would be holding hearings on this issue with an eye toward making this legal authority permanent. The committee's membership, and our colleagues in the other body, however, are willing to make this authority permanent now. I certainly have no objection to proceeding now to ``let'' the marketplace--rather than VA bureaucrats--set mortgage interest rates; I never thought it made sense in the first place to put a ``sunset'' date in the provision which allows reliance on the marketplace. Therefore, I support the House amendment, and I am pleased to be able to make permanent the home loan authorities enacted in 1992. The other House modifications require less explanation. One would extend the maximum term for which a VA Medical Center, in San Antonio, TX, could lease its land in order to facilitate the construction by the local utility of a power plant on VA grounds from which VA could buy inexpensive power. This transaction--at least at this particular medical center--clearly appears to make sense. The other amendments would ease VA reporting burdens--a concept that I certainly support-- and, in three instances, add new reporting requirements. While I am less than enthusiastic about layering yet more statutory reporting requirements on VA, perhaps these reports will be useful. In any case, I do not intend to delay this overdue legislation further by objecting to these reporting requirements. Otherwise, Mr. President, the bill contains no significant modification relative to the bill already approved by the Senate. As explained in greater length in my floor statement of January 5, 1996, the bill will extend VA authority to grant to so-called ``environmental veterans''--those who were exposed to ionizing radiation during service; those who served in the Republic of Vietnam and who are, therefore, ``presumed'' to have been exposed to dioxin; and those who served in the Persian Gulf War and who may have possibly been exposed to some presently unknown toxic substances or other environmental hazards--to priority access to VA hospital care services. That authority will be extended through this year, during which the committee intends to examine closely an entire range of issues associated with VA's standards for eligibility for health care services. It would also extend VA's legal authority to contract for drug and alcohol abuse treatment services. It would extend a number of legal authorities under which VA either itself provides, or contracts for others to provide, health care and other services to homeless veterans. It would extend VA's current pilot program on noninstitutional alternatives to nursing home care. It would also extend: VA's Health Professional Scholarship Program; VA's authority to use local pay surveys to determine the appropriate level of locality pay for VA nurse anesthetists; and VA's authority to enter into certain property leasing transactions. It would extend--and make permanent--previously enacted home loan authorities including: VA's authority to guarantee home loans having market-set interest rates; VA's authority to guarantee ``energy efficient'' mortgages; and VA's authority to allow lenders access to appraisals on the properties they finance. Finally, it would extend VA's ``enhanced loan asset sale authority,'' an authority which facilitates the marketing of instruments by which sales of foreclosed VA-owned properties are financed. As I have noted, Mr. President, these provisions have previously been approved by the Senate, and there was no previous controversy with respect to any of them. The changes made by the other body are not objectionable to me. Nor have any other members of the Veterans' Affairs, Committee raised objection. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to approve these measures, as amended by the other body, in order that we might put into place now-expired VA legal conditions without further delay. Mr. President, I appreciate the time that has been afforded me and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Eickhoff notes again the hypocrisy of Washington's concern about private pension fraud while, at the same time, ignoring the massive problems looming in Social Security. As Mr. Eickhoff notes, ``the private pension funds that so concern Secretary Reich are funded programs. Social Security is a mere promise to pay.'' That is correct-- it is only a promise. The payments promised bear no relation to contributions made by past or current workers. As the article notes, ``Future retirees will have little chance of receiving benefits on a scale anything like those of today. Benefits such as they are will be paid either from borrowed money, from new debt piled onto the existing $5 trillion national debt or from tax receipts.'' Absolutely. That is the way it will be. And let us not forget the projections we currently have, that under current law, if we did everything of the hideous programs presented by the majority party, we will still be saddled $6.2 trillion in debt by the end of this century. We are not doing any heavy lifting of any great import. ``Tax receipts,'' that is the phrase. That is what will darned sure be sought to pay for the benefits that have been promised--especially that pressure to pay it from tax receipts will come from the various seniors' lobbies. We will just hike the old payroll tax again, just as we did in 1983, and keep hiking it and keep hiking it on up to 30 percent of payroll by the year 2030, unless we ``do something'' about the growth of Social Security and Medicare benefits. Everybody knows that, too. And the people who are telling us about the demise of Social Security are the trustees of Social Security, one of whom is my friend, Robert Reich, whom I enjoy thoroughly. A delightful gentleman. He and I do not concur on various philosophical items or ideologically. Another one is Donna Shalala, I have a similar regard for her, a very able lady. And Robert Rubin, another very capable person, even though we disagree heartily. Those are the trustees. Those are three of them, telling us about the doomsday coming. While the present Commissioner of Social Security does nothing, nothing to tell us how do we get out of this box. Quit joshing us. What are your recommendations? You are the Commissioner, Shirley Chater. You are free of the influence of Congress and the President. You are an independent agency, so tell us. And we have nothing coming back except resounding speeches, tales, anecdotal material about how great Social Security is. ``But it will need some attention in the years to come.'' You betcha it will. It is $360 billion a year and we are not even touching it. We have a COLA attached to it that can be between $4 and $8 billion a year which goes out to people regardless of their net worth or their income. It cannot possibly succeed because it was never a pension. It was an income supplement. People are living longer and eating it all up. Now, every day, almost 8,000 people, since the 1st of January, will become 50 years old and they--not intentionally--will destroy the system. And we know it. And they know it. The trustees know it. At least I hope, again, as we open this session, that my good colleagues will take a good look at the bipartisan work of Senator Bob Kerrey and myself, eight bills to restore the solvency of Social Security in the years to come, starting now. Now--not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now--extending the age of retirement over the next 30 years so it is an easy step, allowing people to invest 2 percent of that contribution in a personal investment plan and the other 4.5 percent can go into, then, the system. ``That means a reduction of benefits.'' Indeed it does. Doing something with the current ratios with regard to retirement, not only for ourselves as Congresspersons but all Federal retirees. Doing 30-year budgeting in this particular area. Doing something with the Consumer Price Index. This is absurd. This is a no-brainer. We heard testimony from everyone in the United States, the CPI [Consumer Price Index] was overestimated, from the figure of 0.5 to 2.2. If you just made the change and let it come down minus half a percent it comes $157 or $158 billion in the year 2002. But 10 years out it is nearly $700 billion in savings. These are small items now that will overwhelm us 10 or 15 years from now. And no one is doing anything about it. I say again, for the life of me I cannot understand what happened to the people in society between the ages of 18 and 45. They must be totally asleep or numb, or gone, because they will be gone when they are my age because there will be nothing there unless we begin to make the corrections. And that is the trustees telling us that, not some leftover specter of the past, some right-wing cuckoo from 20 years back or some left-wing zany. That is the trustees telling us this is what is going to happen to Social Security, and we do not even touch it. The President does not touch it. Congress does not touch it. And there are groups out there dedicated to see that you do not touch it. So, I always say to them, ``Do you care about your children and grandchildren?" They always say, ``Oh, yes, that is the purpose of our existence, caring for our children and grandchildren.'' I say, ``Forget it. I do not want to hear that one anymore. That is so much opium smoke. That is a phony.'' They cannot possibly care if they will not allow us to make the adjustments, or at least begin to make the adjustments now. And we all know what we have to do, all of us. And everybody downtown knows it. And the people of America, if they cannot figure all this out in the next 10 months, then get into the old booth and pull the trigger for the other party and say, ``Well, we have had enough of that. I do not know what that great experiment was, but, boy, when they touched Medicare, oh, God, I tell you I rose up. I showed them. And Medicaid and Federal retirement and Social Security.'' So, in that scenario, those of the other faith will come into the Halls of Congress, take over the majority party, and say, ``Boy, aren't we glad we saved you from them because now we are really going to get back to where we were before. We are going to let Medicare go up 10.5 to 12 percent per year. We will show them. Never do that cruel thing where we are going to let it go up only 7 percent a year, or 6.4. We are going to let Medicare and Medicaid go up 10 percent a year. Those were evil people trying to let it go up only 6 percent. We are not going to touch Social Security. We are just going to--well, we might-- just add a little payroll tax. That will fall on the people in society who are not organized, who are not paying $8 a year dues to some organization which is dedicated to seeing how much more they can get out of the Treasury.'' So, that is what is out there and this can all be averted if, as Mr. Eickhoff notes, we act now to prevent a crisis. We simply cannot keep waiting until after the next election. We cannot keep saying that Social Security should be ``off the table.'' We have to adjust to the Consumer Price Index, as more and more are beginning to recognize, from the bipartisan Senate group to the ``Blue Dog'' Democrats to the Washington Post, for Heaven's sake, and we have to phase upward the retirement age and make a number of other changes if we are to have any chance of repairing this situation. So I am very pleased to be working continually with my colleague and friend from Nebraska, Bob Kerrey, in this effort. I continue to hold very serious hearings on this matter in the Social Security Subcommittee which I chair. But I will be having individuals there before us between the ages of 18 and 50 coming to testify, rather than a continual stream of people over 60 coming to testify. I remind my colleagues that Social Security is a promise to them, too. It does not exist simply to harvest the votes from today's retirees. That is what it has become. We all know that even the Washington Post has been noting of late that it is folly to say that Social Security is ``off the table.'' A $360 billion program headed toward certain bankruptcy is ``off the table''? It is absurd. It is stupid. That cannot work. The very least we can do now is to fix the CPI. As I say, groups are working to do at the present time. Others have lately joined in these suggestions. So I do hope my colleagues will read that article and recall that everything and all things we are doing right now on this budget is, or should be, for the benefit of future generations. I tell people at my town meetings; they do not hear it always. I tell it wherever I am. Nobody over 60 is going to get dinged at all in this process unless they are loaded. And if they are loaded, they might get stuck 20 to 40 bucks more a month. If they are not loaded, they will not get hit at all. People cannot even hear that. We cannot go on to ignore this ghastly problem in Social Security and yet ever be able to continue to claim that we have done right by them. Finally, Mr. President, I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to a recent article in the Washington Post regarding the recommendations forthcoming from the Social Security Advisory Council. This is very important. People are ignoring these things because you are not supposed to mention these two detonating words--Social Security. But that council was unable to agree upon a prescribed solution to the impending Social Security solvency crisis, and that is a similar experience with which I am very familiar. I served on the President's Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. We have no difficulty defining the problem, and by a vote of 30 to 1 we agreed that it certainly existed. I have just shared with you moments ago what it is. But when it came time to solve it, only a hardy few were willing to give answers--Senator Bob Kerrey, Senator Jack Danforth, Congressman Alex McMillan, Congressman Porter Goss, Pete Peterson, and myself, to name a few of them--out of a 32-Member commission. So I do know what it is like to struggle for a year to get colleagues to confront a most serious problem, only to be overcome and overwhelmed by the ponderous difficulty of getting a majority to face before us political perils inherent in the solution. Although the advisory council was unable to develop a consensus solution, there is much that is worth noting in the work that they have done. My colleagues would do well to study it. I myself again plan to have serious hearings on this subject this year in my Finance Committee's capacity as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy. Three plans were voted on by the council. One is called the privatization plan, which would take roughly half of the existing contributions to Social Security and refund them to taxpayers to be invested in IRA's or 401(k)-type accounts which would earn retirement income for them while their previous Social Security benefits would be cut accordingly. A few years ago, you could not even pose a discussion about such a plan without someone charging that you were out to destroy Social Security. Yet, this plan received five votes from these advisory council members. I think that shows a deep recognition of the need for fundamental reform of the system. Another plan was backed by former Social Security Commissioner Robert Ball. He would stick very close to some of the more traditional solutions, as Mr. Ball has always done in the past. It would turn to increased taxation: imposing existing payroll taxes on State and local employees; imposing higher taxes on Social Security benefits, and, of course, raising the payroll tax rate. We have heard so much of that before. But I draw my colleagues' attention to some of their other proposals. One is to reform the Consumer Price Index. Bear in mind that this is from the old guard, the most traditional defenders of the existing Social Security system, the people on this committee, this advisory committee, saying now that the CPI needs to be reformed for the sake of Social Security solvency. We need to hear that. If we cannot get that done at all in our current budget process, we are truly ``missing the boat.'' Here is something else they suggest. Having the Government invest the Social Security trust funds in stock market index funds as opposed to simply buying Government bonds. That is something which Senator Kerrey and I have also proposed here in the Senate. That would have been absolute heresy a short time ago. These members of the advisory council will not go so far as to set up individual accounts; they would retain the pooled nature of the program. But, still, this would represent a most significant shift from current practice. So I review all of that for my able colleagues so that they will see that the entire spectrum and scholars and ``experts'' on this issue tell us that fundamental reform is absolutely necessary in order for Social Security to survive. At the very least we must reform the CPI and get these retirement funds somewhere else other than where they are currently are, either into stock funds, or into private retirement accounts, if we are ever to generate the return that will be critically necessary to fund future benefits. I would also note that a third option was described in this article as a ``halfway house'' measure. This plan would provide for two percentage points of the payroll tax to go into a 401(k) or an IRA- style plan. And the chairman of the council voted for that one. That intrigued me greatly because I had also joined Senator Kerrey in offering a plan which had exactly this option as one of its components. Here they have described it as a ``halfway house'' measure. So I, Mr. President--and you have known me a lifetime--have become, I whimsically conjecture, a ``moderate'' now when it comes to Social Security reform, which is touching. It is a touching thing. My colleague might surely be most intrigued to know that. But this Kerrey- Simpson-style proposal is now viewed by the advisory council itself as a compromise between differing approaches to reform of the system. Who would believe it? So I trust that my colleagues will give their earnest attention to the deliberations of the Social Security Advisory Council, and note that all those who study this issue have concluded that fundamental reforms need to be made, starting at the very least with reforming the Consumer Price Index. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the year to come with regard to those issues that will come before the subcommittee which I chair. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to call the attention of my colleagues today to an item or two that have been in the news of late. The theme that unites them loosely is the theme of ``hypocrisy.'' ``Hypocrisy,'' I have said, may well be the ``original sin'' in American political life. The first of these subjects has been reported upon in many of this Nation's newspapers, but as of yet has been insufficiently remarked about among the denizens here in the village of Washington. Lately we have been in the midst of one horrific battle over the budget, gnashing our teeth, wailing, and howling to the heavens--it would be the envy of King Lear--and referring to each other by every manner of cruel epithets. What are the differences that divide us, to occasion this level of hysteria, hype, and hoorah and fingerpointing? Often the differences are in reality very minimal, such as a difference of all of the sum of $7 as to where Medicare part B premium should be in the year 2002. That was the entirety of the difference between the President's first position and the Congress' position. That is where we drew the first ``battle line,'' the first line, the first gauntlet thrown. In my view, it would be just as silly to let this difference sink a budget agreement as it would be to let the size of the tax cut sink an agreement. These are not sufficient causes, in my estimation, to fail to meet our obligation to future generations. One would know little of the minimal size of this difference from watching the evening news, but coincidentally, 7 bucks was the amount that part B premium stood to go up next year, from $46 a month to $53 a month, regardless of one's net worth or income, really not too destructive in society, especially when we do not have any test of income or wealth. I wonder if all of my colleagues fully realize what has been happening out there in the private insurance market while these wretched hostilities have been taking place here in Washington. We have seen some most remarkable increases in insurance premiums, and one of them, ironically enough, comes to our gentle citizens courtesy of the American Association of Retired Persons, the AARP. You have heard me speak of them before. Yes, I have from time to time gently touched upon their activities. Now I have in hand an article describing how this determined, dedicated and obsessed nonprofit organization is raising its medigap insurance premiums for the next 6 months, after which, who knows, they might even rise again. This is the same AARP, I remind my colleagues, the courageous and dogged defenders of the poor, the downtrodden, and the elderly, these are the very same folks who descend upon Washington in droves and hordes to tell us if Medicare part B premiums were to go up--these being voluntary premiums, please recall, voluntary premiums; you do not have to join--but that when this terrible thing happens, mind you, going from $46 to $53 next year regardless of your net worth or your income--and you were not forced into it and it was not any part of an original contract, you got in because it was the best deal in town--and if it goes up 7 bucks, seniors will be hurled out into the streets in their ragamuffin garb. Now, that is bah humbug. Meanwhile--hear this--according to this article, a typical medigap customer of the AARP will see his or her monthly premiums rise from $147 to $178 next year, an increase of $31 a month. Now, this was very striking to me. Let me read from their letter to their aggrieved legions of customers: `` * * * because of rising claim costs, a rate increase will become necessary as of January 1, 1996. Your new rates are guaranteed for six months.'' Let me be sure that every one of us understands. If there is any increase at all in Medicare part B premiums, a voluntary program in which 69 percent of the cost is paid by the ordinary, unbenefited taxpayer, this is decried as a ``benefit cut'' says the AARP. In their own propaganda, pumping their health care program, premiums must inevitably skyrocket because of inevitably, unavoidably--choke, gasp, sob--``rising costs.'' What unadulterated hypocrisy. I do not see anything said here about a ``benefit cut'' to AARP's members although they are sticking it to their customers more than twice as severely as anything yet contemplated here for Medicare part B. No, with Medicare part B, their yowling answer, eternally hurled into the heavens, is always, just keep sticking it to the general taxpayers, never the beneficiary, regardless of their wealth, net worth or income. But when the AARP's own finances are right on the line, their customers are simply told curtly they are going to have to ``pay up.'' Yes, Mr. President, health care costs are going up. Who missed that in America? Some of that burden has to be shared. Who has missed that? With Medicare, most of it will be taken up by taxpayers, but the beneficiaries need to pick up some of that burden, too, if this country is going to avoid bankruptcy. That is the truth, and everyone in Washington knows it. It has always been the height of deception for the AARP or the National Committee for the Preservation of Social Security and Medicare, or all of the similar tub-thumpers or anyone else to claim that it is some God-given right for beneficiaries to be held completely harmless in this process, or even to pretend that any sharing of Medicare cost increases is a ``benefit cut.'' We see so well here from the AARP's own actions that they know full well that their own stance has been stunningly hypocritical. I do now have a sensible proposal for the AARP. If they can find a way to bring their own membership's premiums back down to where they were before, then only, and only then, can they rightly continue to fight so vehemently against all premium increases in Medicare part B. If and when the AARP find this presently unknown and occult way to avoid all premium increases, perhaps they will share the great secret with us and then we can logically do the same and avoid any changes in Medicare part B premiums. But so long as the AARP continues to rake in hundreds of millions annually in tax-exempt insurance income, I trust they will see the unseemliness of any further disgustingly patronizing lecture to our Government about ``what to do with Medicare.'' Let me remind my colleagues again that the AARP is getting a huge share of the take of this premium increase. They pull in more than $100 million annually--their current share of the take, their take--from the contract with Prudential Insurance. They could, I readily note, give up that pile of new cash and return that money right to their membership to offset some of the effects of this premium increase. It seems fair. It certainly does. Does anyone believe that they will? Would any of my colleagues ever believe that the AARP will give up its share of the profit from this lucrative insurance business and return it to the membership, 3.2 million of their own members, who are getting stuck with this increase? No. For this might make it a little tougher for the AARP to meet the annual--you want to hear this one--the annual payments of $17 million in rent each year on its palatial building downtown genially dubbed the ``Taj Mahal,'' or the payment of more than $69 million a year in salaries to themselves--many of them in chunks of more than $100,000 per year per person. There are many on the AARP payroll who make over $100,000 a year. And they lease their building for 17 million big ones every year on a 20-year lease. Figure that up for $8 a month dues. That will run the string for you. No, I suspect they will continue to live in splendor here on E Street and leave their poor old customers scrambling to pay out the extra hundreds of dollars a year which they will have to shell out for this premium increase. I trust my colleagues will remember this action the next time the AARP wanders in here--led by ``Edna the Enforcer''--claiming to represent the interests of America's elderly. The bottom line for this organization is big business, and big profit, pure, and simple. Believe it. The other item which I wish to describe for my genial colleagues is an excellent editorial by Gerald Eickhoff in Investor's Business Daily, entitled ``What About Social Security?'' I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise to comment briefly today, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, on an important and, I think, non-controversial piece of legislation to extend the effective dates of certain legal authorities under which the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] operates. Several of these authorities have expired recently. Except as I will discuss in a moment, each of these ``extender'' provisions was approved by the Veterans' Affairs Committee, by a unanimous voice vote, when the Committee marked up S. 991 on September 20, 1995, and ordered that that bill be favorably reported without written report. In explaining this bill, Mr. President, let me first itemize the provisions of the bill as reported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee on September 20, 1995. Then I will explain the amendments to those provisions contained within a substitute amendment which I have offered today with the concurrence of the committee's ranking minority member, Senator Jay Rockefeller. To summarize, I introduced S. 991 as a ``by request'' bill on behalf of the administration on June 29, 1995. It was reported in amended form by the Veterans' Affairs Committee on September 20, 1995. The bill would be further amended today--to incorporate, for example, extender provisions contained in legislation introduced in the other body--in order to facilitate the other body's approval of this legislation before the current year ends. As for the bill as approved by the Veterans' Committee on September 20, the first section of that bill would extend through next year extant legal authorities which grant to so-called ``environmental veterans''--specifically, those who were exposed to ionizing radiation during service; those who served in the Republic of Vietnam and who are, therefore, presumed to have been exposed to dioxin; and those who served in the Persian Gulf war and who are thought, therefore, to have been exposed to toxic substances and other environmental hazards--to priority access to VA hospital care services. That section would also extend through this year a similar ``priority access'' provision applicable to outpatient care services that applies to Persian Gulf veterans due to the apparently extraordinary--and, to date, still inadequately understood--maladies suffered by those veterans. The Veterans' Affairs Committee intends to hold extensive hearings in 1996 on an issue that is commonly referred to as ``eligibility reform,'' that is, the proposed recodification--and, we hope, simplification if possible--of very complex rules which presently govern which veterans shall have priority access to which categories of health care services. A number of eligibility reform proposals have been advanced--by the other body; by the VA; and by Veterans Service Organizations--all of which would, in some way, effect the relative priority given now to ``environmental veterans'' who have priority access to VA health care services under the rules we would extend today. My thinking on the question of moving now to change substantively the eligibility rules for ``environmental veterans''--an action which the other body would apparently like to take now in isolation from other eligibility reform issues--is this: the committee will be looking into this question, and related questions, in considerable depth in 1996 when it takes up the broader issue of eligibility reform. That being the case, it is appropriate for us now to extend for one year the current rules as they are currently in force until we have a chance to study the House proposal to scale back special eligibility rules for some, or all, ``environmental veterans.'' That study will be part of the analysis which we will undertake on the entire gamut of health care eligibility issues. While I think it is appropriate to defer consideration of environmental veterans' eligibility rules for a period, I also think it would be wholly inappropriate for the Congress now to allow some or all of these priority access rules to ``die a quiet death'' by simply declining to consider extending them further. Allowing these special access rules to expire--or making significant amendments to them--may be appropriate actions for the Congress to take. But they will not be appropriate until the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has given such proposals the serious and thoughtful consideration they merit. The Senate Committee will arrive at its own judgments on eligibility reform matters after it holds hearings, builds a record, and debates the issues. It will not take up such issues prematurely. And it will not take up such issues prematurely. And it will not take them up on a piecemeal basis. There will be time in 1996 to study the current rules governing access to VA health care by Persian Gulf, Vietnam and radiation-exposed veterans. In the interim, we should extend the current standards until such time as that study can take place. The other provisions of law which we would extend today are far less controversial than those pertaining to the relative access of some classes of veterans to health care services. This bill would also, for example, extend VA's legal authority to contract for drug and alcohol abuse treatment services. It would, in addition, extend a number of legal authorities under which VA either itself provides, or contracts for others to provide, health care and other services to homeless veterans. It would extend VA's current pilot program on noninstitutional alternatives to nursing home care. Finally, it would extend: VA's Health Professional Scholarship Program; VA's authority to use local pay surveys to determine the appropriate level of locality pay for VA nurse anesthetists; and VA's authority to enter into certain property leasing transactions. As I have noted, Mr. President, these provisions are relatively non- controversial. All on the Committee were willing, at minimum, to allow the programs authorized by these provisions of law to continue--at least for a period while they are subjected to further analysis. The Senate Committee is unwilling at this time to ``kill'' any such provision of law, through inaction, as opposed to making an affirmative determination that the program ought to be terminated. There has been, however, one unanticipated exception to the ``rule'' that the Veterans Committee would not terminate programs or benefits by declining to extend legal authorities previously enacted. That exception is the extension of VA authority to guarantee adjustable rate home mortgage loans (so-called ``ARMs'') which was approved by the Committee at markup but which would be excised from the bill under the amendment that I offer today. The Congress approved a 3-year ``demonstration project'' in 1992 which authorized VA, for the first time, to include adjustable rate mortgages in its home loan guaranty program. It appears that the program has been a success, and I had hoped, therefore, to extend it. As distinguished from the other body, however--which proposed to make VA's authority to guarantee ARMs permanent--I had proposed when I introduced S. 991 to extend the ARM ``demonstration project'' for 2 more years before considering giving it permanent status so that the committee might have an opportunity to view the performance of such loans over a wider range of interest rates. The Veterans' Committee concurred with that judgment when it approved such a 2-year extension on September 20. When the committee acted, however, it was relying on a preliminary, informal cost estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office [CBO]. That informal cost estimate indicated, in effect, that adjustable rate mortgages--at least the relatively conservative adjustable rate mortgages guaranteed by VA--are not significantly more likely than fixed rate mortgages to go into default and that, therefore, an extension in VA's authority to guarantee such loans would not subject the Government to significantly higher exposure to loss-- and, in turn, costs--than fixed rate home loans. CBO, however, reconsidered its preliminary, informal view on the potential cost of VA guarantees of adjustable rate mortgage loans. By letter issued on October 25, 1995--which I request, Mr. President, be made part of this Record in its entirety--CBO concluded as follows: Adjustable-rate mortgages involve a greater subsidy cost to the federal government than fixed rate mortgages (FPMs) because they have a higher likelihood of default. ARMs are more risky than FPMs, not only because interest rates can rise, but because home buyers with a given amount of income usually can qualify to borrow more money with an ARM than with a FPM, thereby becoming more financially leveraged. Thus, borrowers with the greatest risk can opt for an ARM over a FPM. This greater risk results in higher delinquency and foreclosure rates. Based on this analysis, Mr. President, CBO estimated that an extension of VA's authority to guarantee ARMs would cost VA $36 million in fiscal year 1996 and $33 million in fiscal year 1997. I was surprised, Mr. President, to learn of this cost estimate from CBO, especially since CBO did not so ``cost'' the legislation that enacted the ARM guarantee ``demonstration project'' just 3 years ago. As I understand it, VA guaranteed ARMs have more conservative underwriting standards than other ARMs. In addition, the monthly payments to be made by borrowers using VA guaranteed adjustable rate financing fluctuate less than payments under other ARMs since annual interest rate increases on VA-guaranteed ARMs are ``capped'' at 1 percent, rather than at 2 percent as is common practice. In light of these distinctions, the Veterans Affairs Committee has operated under the belief that VA guarantee ARMs would ``perform'' better than other ARM's--and that the Government, therefore, would not be exposed to inordinate loss. We had hoped to extend this ``demonstration project'' to see, through a review of VA's actual loss data, if that belief was well grounded. Be that as it may, Mr. President, CBO's cost estimate makes such an extension impossible for all practical purposes. If this legislation were to propose an extension in this ``demonstration project,'' it would also have to propose money-saving legislation to ``offset'' the costs which CBO estimates would be incurred if the ARM extension were to be enacted. The committee has no such legislation to propose at this time; all cost-saving measures the committee was able to approve are already contained in the Veterans' Committee's portion of the budget reconciliation Balanced Budget Act now before the Congress. Accordingly, the chairman's amendment which I have proposed today would remove the ARM extender from S. 991. There is another aspect of my substitute amendment that merits explanation. As I have discussed, the substitute would remove one home loan provision--the one which would have extended VA's ARM authority-- but one which would have extended VA's ARM authority--but it would also add to the bill four other home loan-related authorities. These provisions are drawn from legislation introduced in the other body. They are not controversial. First, my amendment would extend for a 2 year period VA's authority to guarantee home loans having interest rates negotiated by the borrower with the lender. Until 1992, VA established, by administrative action, maximum permissible mortgage interest rates to be allowed on VA guaranteed mortgages are a given point in time. VA attempted to ``track'' market-set interest rates, but despite its best efforts, there often were differentials between market rates and VA-set rates, if only due to delays in administrative action. Such differentials did not necessarily result in veteran-borrowers getting a ``good deal.'' More typically, when VA ceilings were set below prevailing rates, the ``spread'' was offset by the charging of so-called ``points.'' Those points were assessed to the seller--not the veteran-borrower--but again, that did not mean that the veteran got a ``good deal.'' Sellers' points were typically recovered by sellers through increases in the selling prices of homes. In short, they were ``passed through'' to the veteran-buyer; veteran-buyers gained no advantage, typically, even though the interest rates they were being charged appeared to be ``below market.'' Rather, they paid for the interest rate differential ``up front'' through higher purchase prices. My amendment's extension of the allowance of market-set interest rates--as is the result when rates are negotiated by the borrower in today's competitive marketplace--eliminates such distortions. My amendment, in addition, would extend VA authority to guarantee ``energy efficient'' mortgages. Most would agree that improvements to homes to achieve energy efficiency are desirable. Since 1992, VA has permitted the costs incurred in adding such improvements to a home-- which improvements can, and often do, enhance the value of a property in the marketplace--to be ``rolled in'' to the mortgage loan-financed costs of the home. This program appears to have had some social utility, and insofar as the committee has been able to determine, it has not resulted in losses to the Government. Therefore, I propose today that this program be extended for 2 more years. My amendment would, in addition, extend for 2 years VA's authority to allow lenders access to appraisals on the properties they finance. This provision, of course, is only reasonable; there is no reason for lenders not to have access to such information. All three of these extenders--an extension in VA's authority to guarantee marketplace-set interest rate loans; an extension in VA's authority to guarantee ``energy efficient'' mortgages; and an extension in VA's allowance of access to property appraisals by lenders--seem, perhaps, to be ``no brainers'' to use a current vernacular. They are extensions of law, however, that rely on analysis that the Senate Committee has not had opportunity to evaluate. In addition, they are ``extenders'' which VA-proposed legislations--S. 991 as introduced by me on June 29, 1995, on the administration's behalf-did not request. I expect that the committee will study these provisions over the next 2 years. At that time, I expect that the committee will be in better position to consider permanent authorizations. In the meantime, I would suggest that these measures, which CBO has concluded would have no significant budgetary impact when it ``costed'' them for the other body, ought to be extended for 2 years. My proposed amendment would also extend, for a 1-year period, VA's ``enhanced loan asset sale authority.'' This authority--which, in summary, facilitates the marketing of instruments by which sales of foreclosed VA-owned properties are financed--has already been approved by the committee, and the Congress, as part of the Balanced Budget Act. This provision, which will save the Government $35 million over a 7- year period, will expire at the end of the year. We surely hope that the Balanced Budget Act will be approved before then, and that that legislation will affect an extension in this authority. Because, however, a lapse in such authority would be disruptive to VA's efforts to ``bundle'' and sell its mortgage-backed securities, my amendment would extend that authority through this legislation while the Congress considers further changes in the Balanced Budget Act. Finally, Mr. President, my amendment would modify four of the expiration time frames approved by the Senate Committee when it considered this legislation in September. It would propose to extend through 1997--rather than through 1996, as approved by the committee-- VA's pilot program for noninstitutional alternatives to nursing home care. It would extend VA's authority to survey local communities for appropriate comparability pay data for nurse anesthetists through 1997 rather than through 1999. It would extend VA's Health professional Scholarship Program through 1997 rather than through 1996. And it would extend the McKinney Act's Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Project through 1997 rather than through 1996. The purpose of these modifications, Mr. President, is to conform our bill more closely to the time frames approved by the other body and, thereby, to promote the prospects for agreement. I might also note that the fourth of these time frame modifications--the expansion of the McKinney Act's Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Project extension from 1 year to 2 years--is a matter that I know is one of deep personal concern to my good friend, the Senator from Minnesota. In closing, Mr. President, let me say that I hope the Senate will approve S. 991 as favorably reported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee on September 20, 1995, and as further amended today. Let me say, as well, that I hope the other body will approve it expeditiously. It is good, sound legislation; there should be no controversy on it. Other matters can be resolved in this new year--and they will be resolved--so long as all who are concerned about the needs of the Nation's veterans continue to approach this serious business in the cooperative spirit that has been so productive in the past. Mr. President, I appreciate the time that has been afforded me. I ask unanimous consent a CBO cost estimate and an October 25, 1995, cover letter from June O`Neill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak about this crucial yet potentially devastating issue of raising the debt ceiling. It's certainly obvious why raising the debt ceiling is so crucial--the Government must meet its obligations. However, I do find this whole exercise a devastating testament to the continuing excesses of spending. Last year, I served on the bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, which was guided through the deep swamps of entitlement spending by two remarkable and courageous men--Senator Bob Kerrey, who served as our able chairman, and our former colleague, Senator Jack Danforth, who served as vice chairman. From June through December, the Commission held a series of public meetings in which we looked for any and all ways to slow down the incredible pace at which entitlement spending is growing. Along the way, the Commission approved--by a vote of 30 to 1--an interim report which spelled out some highly sobering truths about Federal spending. Perhaps the single most important finding in the interim report was that entitlement spending and interest on the debt together accounted for almost 62 percent of all Federal expenditures in 1993. Furthermore, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this spending will consume fully 72 percent of the Federal budget by the year 2003 if the present trends continue. These are expenditures that occur automatically without Members of Congress casting so much as a single vote. This ought to serve as a ``wake-up call'' to all of us that we are headed on a course to disaster unless we act affirmatively to change course. By the year 2012--less than 20 years away--entitlements and interest on the mounting debt will together consume all tax revenues collected by the Federal Government. We stand to have no money left over for national defense, education, national parks--pick your program. Unfortunately, the Commission concluded its business in December without reaching an agreement on specific recommendations for bringing entitlement spending under control. That was most disappointing to me. I offered my own solution, as did the Co-Chairs, Senators Kerrey and Danforth, but the majority of the Commission would not endorse the necessary measures. However, 24 of the Commission's 32 members joined in writing a letter to President Clinton, emphasizing the need for ``immediate action'' and outlining various policy options--some of which Senator Kerrey and I have introduced in a retirement reform package to shore up the Social Security Program. Each of us has an obligation--not only to our constituents, but to ourselves and our children and grandchildren--to confront these issues head-on. Whatever outrage and hostility we may encounter from today's defenders of the ``status quo''--and there will be plenty of it, a world of it--it will pale in comparison to the richly deserved scorn we will receive from future generations if we fail to have the courage to act on the impending entitlements crisis. So as we act on the raising of the debt ceiling, let us remember what this means to our children and grandchildren who will be billed for this debt. That's why I supported the inclusion of a ``generational accounting'' chapter in the President's budget. We need to be reminded of what this debt means to future generations, and why defenders of the status quo who oppose our budget-balancing efforts should be called to account.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as this unprecedented Government ``shutdown'' continues, I trust we will not fail to consider its impact in terms of how it affects so many individuals. In my home State of Wyoming--a ``public lands'' State--the closure of national treasures such as Yellowstone National Park inflicts pain and frustration on many fronts. This closure, and the shutdown of related facilities and activities in my State, is a ``hammer blow'' to the recreation industry. It is an extreme disappointment to those who have long planned outdoor recreational vacations in that pristine winter environment. It also has a devastating economic impact on businesses and individuals throughout the region. All across America, people's lives are being harshly affected by this action and it is all too easy--in our effort to view this problem on a regional, national, or even philosophical scale--to forget the needs and desires of the many individuals who sent us here to Washington not to bicker things to death, but to try to resolve them. Let me cite here another example of the many affects of the shutdown of key services and facilities. I am deeply honored to serve as a Regent of the Smithsonian Institution. It is shut down. People from around our Nation--and from all around the world--as a part of this holiday season, have gathered their families to visit the Anacostia Museum, the Arts and Industries Building, the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum in New York, the Freer Gallery of Art, the Hirshorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, the National Air and Space Museum, the National Museum of African Art, and National Museum of American Art, the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of the American Indian, the National Museum of Natural History, the National Portrait Gallery, the National Postal Museum, the National Zoological Park, the Renwick Gallery, the Arthur Sackler Gallery, the Smithsonian ``Castle,'' the National Zoo, and a host of research facilities. But they won't. They can't. These facilities are not open to the taxpaying public. Their treasures are not to be viewed. The people who so wish to visit them over the holidays must be wondering wide-eyed, ``What on earth is going on!?'' The museums of the Smithsonian report more than 25 million visitors annually. This great treasure of an institution is about to celebrate its 150th anniversary. And yet it is closed. Last December more than 1 million people visited the Smithsonian museums and galleries. In past years, visitorship in the last week of December has been double the week before. This year, most likely, it will not be. The Smithsonian's retail shops and restaurants netted $2.6 million for the Institution last December--$440,000 in the final week alone, not counting restaurant proceeds. This is traditionally one of the most productive months for these operations of the Smithsonian. Until this year. Another beneficiary of the Smithsonian's ``draw'' is the District of Columbia--itself in the midst of a major financial crisis. The Smithsonian's closure will certainly result in a parallel reduction of income for the District, as people learn there is no reason--and no way-- to visit. In the case of Yellowstone Park, our three-member Wyoming delegation is working with our fine Governor, Jim Geringer, and with the Department of Interior in a sincere effort to craft an arrangement whereby Yellowstone can be reopened. It is not yet known whether that can yet happen, but if that is the case, the impact of this regrettable ``shutdown'' can be, at least to that certain degree, minimized--1997 will be Yellowstone's 125th anniversary. The Smithsonian will be celebrating a birthday too. I trust that later today we will be able to call up and pass H.R. 2627, the House passed legislation authorizing the minting of a commemorative coin celebrating the Smithsonian's 150 years of existence. This legislation is being presently held at the desk, has been ``cleared'' on our side of the aisle and, I believe, will soon be ``cleared'' on the other side. Swift passage of this legislation will be a clear and bright signal of our concern for this wonderful institution. Sales of this commemorative coin will help to minimize the financial damage of this unfortunate shutdown to the Smithsonian. And beyond all that, I trust that in this holiday season we might be especially mindful of our duties and responsibilities to our Nation, our States, and our dear friends, family and neighbors as we deal with the vexing issues that divide us. Perhaps those eternal concepts of integrity, common purpose, trust, fair compromise and statesmanship can again carry us through this difficulty, helping us to responsibly agree as to the path that should guide us and so many future generations of Americans.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to take a few brief moments of the Senate's time to acknowledge the impending retirement of Mr. Lee M. Nackman from Federal service. For nearly 10 years, Mr. Nackman has served as the Director of the Los Angeles VA Outpatient Clinic. During his tenure, he has taken his clinic from substandard basement quarters to a $40 million, state-of- the-art, ambulatory care center in the heart of downtown Los Angeles. The constituency served by the clinic brings to it a myriad of medical and psychosocial problems. Many of the veterans care for are homeless, living on the streets literally within sight of Los Angeles' City Hall. In large measure because of his leadership, each of the veterans cared by the clinic is treated with the dignity and respect they have earned through service to their country. This is a difficult patient population, yet Lee Nackman has assured that it is one that is well served by the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. Mr. President, on January 3, 1996, Mr. Nackman is ending a distinguished 35-year career of service to America's veterans. He began as a pharmacy intern at the Manhattan VA Medical Center upon completion of his B.S. degree from Columbia University. While working as a pharmacy resident at what is now the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center, he completed his M.Sc. degree at the University of Southern California School of Pharmacy. Throughout his career with the Veterans Administration, now the Department of Veterans Affairs, he has held a series of positions of ever increasing responsibility in pharmacy and in health care management, to include 2 years as Assistant Director of the VA hospital in Sheridan, WY. While in Los Angeles, Mr. Nackman has chaired the Southern California and Southern Nevada network of the Veterans Health Administration. His leadership was instrumental in creating a more integrated, more patient focused approach to caring for the more than 1.7 million veterans residing in that area. This network approach to providing health care has served as a model for the national reorganization of VA health care delivery into Veterans Integrated Service Networks. Mr. Nackman currently chairs the Greater Los Angeles Federal Executive Board, in which capacity he has shown leadership in encouraging a range of Federal partnerships which assure the provision of services administered by all Federal agencies in a more efficient and effective manner. This country's taxpayers deserve no less. Mr. President, Lee Nackman has brought honor and dignity to the status of Federal employee. He has contributed to all that is good about those in Government who provide goods and services to our citizens, and most significantly, to the veterans he has so directly cared for over the 35 years of his distinguished career. Those of us who care deeply about this Nation's veterans can but thank those men and women, like Lee Nackman, who have dedicated themselves to the service of veterans. It is fitting that we recognize that service today. It is also appropriate that we express our thanks to Lee Nackman--and indeed, to so many dedicated public servants, the best of whom he represents--at this, the moment of his retirement. Mr. President, I know all in this body join with me in this valedictory. We wish Lee Nackman many years of a satisfying retirement. During that time he can truly look back upon a job well done.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Lautenberg responded to a statement I made yesterday regarding the so-called Lautenberg amendment. In defending this abused program, which has made a farce of the Refugee Act, my friend and colleague claimed that the beneficiaries ``have to prove a credible fear'' of persecution before they qualify. Yet, in fact, these people do not have to prove a credible fear of persecution; rather all they have to do is assert a fear of discrimination. Discrimination, Mr. President, is not persecution; and asserting a fear is not proving it. All other refugees in the world who are coming to this country are required to prove a ``well-founded fear of persecution.'' Senator Lautenberg responded to the reports of criminals using this program to enter the United States by saying it wasn't designed to ``allow criminals to enter.'' He said it is the responsibility of the INS and the State Department to prevent criminals from using the program. I would remind my good friend that when the INS tried its level best to effectively screen these people, representatives of ``the groups'' went directly to Moscow to insist upon lower standards. Do not blame the Justice and the State Departments alone for this fiasco. ``The groups'' and their skilled lobbyists created this one from whole cloth. Senator Lautenberg said he was surprised to hear me refer to Russia as our ``best friend.'' Perhaps best friend was a bit of an overstatement, but they are certainly among our friends, and certainly this administration and this President as well as the previous administration have gone out of their way to cultivate friendly relations with that country. Whether it is a best friend or a good friend, there is certainly no justification whatever--at this present day--for some blanket ``presumption'' of ``refugeeness'' for any of their citizens who happen to belong to one of several religious groups, some of whose members have been subject to discrimination or even persecution in the past. However, the most astounding thing the Senator from New Jersey said was that the program ought to be extended for another year. Even if we cut this off today, there are 100,000 of these beneficiaries of the Lautenberg amendment already ``in the pipeline.'' That means that even without an extension we will have 35,000 entering every year for the next 3 years. I can only reply to my friend that he should read again the article I placed into the Congressional Record yesterday, and I respectfully recommend that he should talk to the Immigration Service about the current traffic from Moscow regarding this program. How can any of us support a program where only one-half of 1 percent of those applying now could qualify as a ``refugee'' under the American and the international law definition of ``refugee''? We make a mockery of the law if we do so. Why should the American taxpayer provide our severely limited refugee aid for these persons, who are actually regular ``immigrants,'' not ``refugees.'' These ``asserters'' are not even required to prove a well-founded fear of persecution, so we have absolutely no assurance that they are, in fact, refugees. And more importantly please recall that when they do receive permission to enter the United States, they take months, even sometimes more than a year, to decide whether or not they really want to come here. About 40,000 of them who are authorized to come here are lingering in the former Soviet Union, weighing their options. They are clearly in no hurry. That is what an immigrant ordinarily does--to calmly, and without urging, weigh all the pluses and minuses of staying or going to the United States. A true refugee does not have any possible luxury of such a lengthy, deliberative process. After all they are required to be ``fleeing'' or have a ``well founded fear'' of persecution. Again, I urge the conferees on the State Department reauthorization bill to insist upon the Senate provisions and not continue this misused program any longer.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this confirms the very serious concerns I have always had about the program. According to the article, INS memorandums and other communications describe the fraud and abuse in the program which, after only 2 years, became a rubber stamp for admission to the United States as a refugee of almost any person in the former Soviet Union who ``claimed'' or asserted to be a Jew or Pentecostal or persecuted Evangelical, Christian or other category. The startling part of it is, the article notes, by 1993 only about one-half of 1 percent of those entering the United States as refugees under the Lautenberg amendment actually have a well- founded fear of persecution on account of their religion. The problem is if the INS had the audacity, or perhaps the gumption, to deny even a small percentage of the applicants, the ``groups,'' the interest groups would continue to demand an ever more lenient consideration of these so-called refugee claims. The result of these demands is that we see a lower standard being applied to applicants for this very special program. Mr. President, many of the persons being admitted under this amendment are excellent immigrants. They bring diversity to our immigrant flow, many are well educated, and will be productive members of our society. We all like to hear that. I do, too. However, many others will require public assistance, some for the rest of their lives. We now know of situations where people will bring aged parents here and immediately place them on the public support system. Still others, according to Hedges' article, are frauds, complete frauds who should not be here at all, or criminals. But the important point I want to make for my colleagues is that all of these persons enter as refugees. This means, and there is a tremendous difference between a refugee and an immigrant, this means they can receive not only Federal assistance with the costs of their airline tickets to come here, they will also receive special refugee cash and medical assistance after they arrive. Further, there are private agencies that receive them at the airport and are paid $670 per person for each of these 40,000 to 50,000 so- called refugees who arrive every year under this program. Those are called R&P grants. I do not think the people of America even understand that there is $670 per person from the taxpayers to receive and place these people. R&P: reception and placement. They do not understand at all. Occasionaly it was not even all expended--take in the refugees, place them, spend $150, $200 or $300, put the rest of the money in the account of their group. Congressman Mazzoli and I broke up that playhouse some years ago, and I would like to think that does not occur anymore. But they would stockpile refugee funds because they did not need all that money. People do not understand that part of it. This is, as I say, inside baseball. But I would trust my colleagues, particularly those who are conferees on the State Department reauthorization and reorganization bill, will insist on the Senate position and strike any provisions which would further extend this now thoroughly discredited program. Its original intent may have been met. It surely does not serve us well now. And if you still do not believe it, then here is a figure for you. There are 40,000 people in the former Soviet Union who have been designated as refugees, presumed to be so under the Lautenberg amendment, who have not come yet. They are still there. They are ``arranging things.'' They have been there for 6 months or a year or longer because they are still searching for the best deal for themselves to stay, or to come as a refugee. How do you come in a way where the Federal Government of the United States pays you the most money to get you here. But, ladies and gentlemen, you cannot be a refugee and then hang around in your country. A refugee is a refugee is a refugee. It means a person fleeing persecution, and it means immediate fear. It does not mean you wait around to decide whether to go to southern California at your pleasure. That is not a refugee. And if Americans cannot understand that, we will have more such Proposition 187's and all that goes with it. Mr. President, I would certainly call upon the Attorney General to take a very hard, close look at this program. I would like to have a report from them, from the Attorney General, from the Justice Department, from the INS and from the State Department. And I know what it will likely be. Hopefully, we will be able to get some breath of reality into the situation. To ensure that, there is a very simple thing, and the simple thing is a screening program, a case-by-case screening, just exactly what was called for in the 1980 Refugee Act, and put it in Moscow or elsewhere to ensure that persons with criminal records are not entering our country as refugees under this discredited program because if this article is at all accurate, it is well apparent that this program requires the most careful scrutiny. I will be speaking on it from time to time. It will rise apparently like a Phoenix, as it does, and then you are not supposed to come and say anything against it because then you are against refugees, and you are really quite a foul fellow, and that is not who I am. But we are going to deal with that. We are going to deal with it realistically because you either are a refugee or you are an immigrant. And if you are a refugee, it will be a case-by-case determination under the Refugee Act of 1980. And if you are really a refugee, can you really be one from the present Commonwealth of the Newly Independent States, the former Soviet Union, because these are our finest allies, our friends. It is like someone said to me the other day: What are we going to do with refugees from Mexico? I said if that is where the debate has gone, then everybody has rocks in their head or wax in their ears. There are no refugees from Mexico. How can one be a refugee from Mexico, a democracy, our remarkable neighbor to our south. So those are the twisted terms we get to play with in this particular arena, and I hope that we can at least for the American public's edification and clarity try to describe what those terms are and what a refugee really is. And it certainly cannot be presumed that there are 40,000 of them coming per year from the former Soviet Union. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Carolina. I will not transgress greatly on the time remaining to him. Let me speak clearly, I hope, on an issue which is, I think, very critical, and it comes up in the House version of this legislation and at this level with regard to the present legislation. I call to my colleagues' attention a front-page article in the November 4 issue of the Washington Times, a piece by Michael Hedges describing a pattern of the most serious abuse in the admission of refugees under the so-called Lautenberg amendment. First, let me say my friend, Senator Frank Lautenberg, is a very able legislator, a friend, a person I very much enjoy working with. I have tried to resist this legislation from its inception. But, nevertheless, the Senate felt we should go forward. And now it has been for more than 6 years since the so-called Lautenberg amendment first provided a very dramatic exception to the definition of a refugee in the Refugee Act of 1980. The Refugee Act of 1980 was sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. I was rather new on the scene in those years and found it to be a great learning experience to watch it crafted, to see what occurred as it was put on the statute books. The provision of the law, the Lautenberg amendment, created a presumption--now, this may be inside baseball and I know how that works in this place, but this is big-time understanding. If we cannot get this understood by the American people, we will not get it unraveled. The provision provided a presumption of refugee status for certain groups in the Soviet Union--this is the former Soviet Union--who ``assert'' a claim of persecution or discrimination and that would make them a ``refugee.'' That has been now extended three times since 1989 and is due to sunset at the end of this fiscal year, September 30, 1996. In the House-passed State Department reauthorization, there is yet a further 2-year extension of the so-called Lautenberg amendment. When I speak of the amendment, I do not speak of its sponsor, I speak of its intent and what has happened with it. What we have now is the fact there is no longer any Soviet Union. They are our finest friends, the former Soviet Union. So we are going to continue now, according to the House version, this rather embarrassing mockery of our refugee laws until the end of fiscal year 1998. The Soviet immigration program has become terribly distorted. There is even evidence that Russian mafia members and other criminals are now beginning to use this system, and why would they not? It is in disarray. But, most importantly, Mr. President, how in the world can we explain our posturing around the world about our rare and wonderful friendship and alliance with the present Russian Government and the present independent states and the Commonwealth and the present affection between President Yeltsin and President Clinton--and we do that everyday--while pretending in some cruel way that somehow people coming out of there are still refugees? That cannot fit. It simply makes absolutely no sense. But, of course, it would not be the first time in this remarkable city. I would not suggest in any possible way that we are forgetting the lessons of the past or the persecution of Jews in the former Soviet Union and throughout the world or the lessons of the Holocaust, but please know--and if we cannot understand this, we are all in trouble-- please know that each and every one of those people will be processed on a case-by-case basis in an orderly way, all in accordance with the 1980 Refugee Act, the creation of Senator Kennedy and other innovative legislators, and a piece of very humane and responsible legislation. What does it do? It provides that if one is a refugee--that is a person fleeing persecution or having a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, national origin, membership in a political organization or social group--a very clear description; it is the U.S. description; it is the U.N. description. Such a person would then be designated as a refugee and that would be done on a case-by-case basis. All of those in the former Soviet Union, whether they be Jews or Pentecostals, Christians, Evangelicals, or persons persecuted for their political views, will have the same opportunity as all other true refugees around this world to enter the United States as a refugee. But the Lautenberg amendment and that program must end. With absurdities like this being extended year after year, it is no wonder that people scoff at our immigration and refugee laws. Let us end it now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON. Please.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this appropriation is a very good one for veterans. It fully funds veterans' benefits payments. And, unlike many of the non-veteran programs funded by this bill, veterans' health care funding would actually increase. Mr. President, there is one provision in this conference report which affects a small sum of dollars, but which is important to VA and to America's veterans. Funding for staffing and travel in the office of the Secretary has been reduced. Mr. President. I support that reduction. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has left no tub unpounded, no stump without a speech, in a campaign of propaganda misrepresenting the actions of this Congress. I tire of that. He has continued to talk about budget ``cuts.'' Even when he knows so well that the budget is actually being increased. He continues to talk about declines in VA health care services even after personally sitting through a hearing where the increases were quantified and illustrated by charts. He took a discredited advocacy ``study'' from a liberal lobby group and tried to give it the stature of a ``government'' report. That action was an attempt to ``use''--yes that is the term--veterans as the point men in a political campaign to defeat reforms needed to preserve the Medicare and Medicaid programs. In short, Secretary Brown has confused the responsibilities of a Cabinet Secretary with the role of a political lobbyist. He has assumed the zealous mission of a political advocate without remembering the requirement to led and administer his Department. And, as an article in today's Washington Post makes clear, he is wholly unrepentant in his course. Yes, the conference report will restrict his political activities. But, and hear this, and hear clearly, it will not restrict his ability to lead his Department. In fact, if it causes him to stay right here in Washington and focus hard on the many heretofore unaddressed challenges facing the Department of Veterans Affairs, the reduced funding level could actually improve his stewardship over the Department. The issue is not ``freedom of speech.'' That is pure bunkum. Those who make that argument are not really arguing that the Secretary has a right to speak. They are instead arguing that the taxpayers have an obligation to pay for whatever he wants to say. That is, or course, surely not the case. Mr. President, this is not a perfect bill. No bill is. But the members of the subcommittee have done a very good job in protecting funding for veterans' programs. I think it would be tragic if the President were to use funding levels for nonveteran programs as an excuse to veto a bill that increases veterans' medical spending and fully funds their benefits. I am sure that my friend from Missouri will confirm that it will be very hard to craft a bill as favorable to veterans as this one and which also increases funding for other programs. I commend Senators Bond and Mikulski. They work well together as managers of the bill. I thank them for their yeoman work and I do hope the Senate will join me in support of the bill.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] is correct. While we are pleased that the House passed lobbying reform legislation with the original Simpson-Craig language intact, we also believe that Congress would want to take the opportunity, in the form of this technical corrections resolution, to acknowledge the unique status of certain 501(c)(4) organizations, as we did in our redrafted amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill and the second continuing resolution. We therefore submit our amendment to eliminate the terms ``contracts'' and ``any other form'' to the Senate, trusting that the correcting language will more closely conform to the intentions of the Congress in passing our original amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I rise, along with Senator Craig, to offer an amendment to H.Con.Res. 116, the resolution to make technical corrections to the recently-passed lobbying reform legislation, S. 1060. We understand that our amendment is acceptable to the managers of the lobbying reform legislation, Senators Levin and Cohen, and we are grateful to each of them for their cooperation. In explaining our technical amendment, we note that three versions of the Simpson-Craig lobbying reform amendment have passed the Senate. The first was our amendment to S. 1060, banning all forms of Federal fund transfers, including contracts, to organizations described in Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(4) who also engage in lobbying activities. Part of the rationale for this amendment was that those organizations should not simultaneously enjoy the benefits of exemption from taxation, unlimited expenditures on lobbying, and Federal funding support. However, learning of a quirk in the legislative history of 501(c)(4) organizations, we found that many insurance companies are still technically organized as 501(c)(4) organizations, even though they are now fully taxable. Many of these, along with other health care providers that are also 501(c)(4) organizations, handle Federal contracts under Medicare, the Federal employees health system, and CHAMPUS. We believe that our colleagues would concur that such groups lie outside the scope of the intended reach of a cutoff of grant money to organizations which enjoy the benefits of 501(c)(4) status. It is for this reason that we redrafted our amendment, during consideration of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, to correct for this and to exclude contracts from the prohibition on Federal funding assistance. That amendment passed the Senate by voice vote on July 24 of this year. The third version of this provision to pass the Senate was included in a broader version of grants reform, which was the Simpson-Craig amendment to the provision authored by Representatives Istook, McIntosh, and Ehrlich that the House had included in House Joint Resolution 115, the second FY 1996 continuing resolution. In the language in that amendment affecting 501(c)(4) organizations, we also took out the ban on contracts and other forms of funding, other than grants.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Dole-McCain resolution regarding the deployment of United States troops in Bosnia. I would like to begin my remarks by commending the respected majority leader for his skill and leadership in this sensitive and vital area. I emphasize the word ``leader,'' because true leadership has been required here and has been much evident. There is, I believe it is fair to say, a great amount of shared rich feeling here in the Senate about this deployment. There is a palpable feeling of trepidation about this mission, on both sides of the aisle. Few in this body are certain that sending troops is the right thing to do, and for that reason, would not have voted to do it. At the same time, there is considerable sentiment here that we should do eveything possible to fully support our troops once they are there, and to avoid any appearance of undercutting our Commander in Chief. To undercut our command structure while American troops are in harm's way is something that most Senators earnestly wish to avoid. I believe that the Senate has plaintively wished to give voice simultaneously to these two conflicting impulses. The majority leader's initiative has made it possible for us to do so. Turning that shared feeling into a constructive statement of policy is a tremendously difficult task. It requires not only considerable political skill and courage, but a detailed recognition of the factors confronting our forces in Bosnia, and confronting our President. First, I do believe that there is broad agreement here about the President's constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief, to deploy U.S. forces to defend U.S. interests abroad. We in Congress do have the constitutional right and duty to be involved in fundamental decisions of war and peace. But the principal ways in which we do this are-- first, to declare war ourselves, a congressional prerogative, and second, to use our power over the purse to limit the military operation pursued by the President. We do retain that power. But otherwise, we recognize that it is the President, not the Congress, who has the authority to command the Armed forces, within the limits of what Congress is willing to fund. Earlier today, we voted as to whether to forbid the President to use DOD funds to support a deployment in Bosnia. Buy a 77 to 22 vote, we decided that we would not curtail such funding. Thus I believe that it is now incumbent upon the Congress to maximize the chances of success for the mission which the President has seen fit to initiate. The President's decision to deploy U.S. forces is associated with his committing the United States to do its share in upholding a peace negotiated between the warring parties. I have my own grave doubts about whether this peace will hold. It may indeed hold, but I do not believe that it will hold simply because United States, British, French, or other NATO forces are present. If the warring parties in Bosnia are not satisfied with the terms of the peace, they will take out their hostilities on whichever forces are in this way. I believe that the historical record in that regard is so very clear. It is possible that the peace will indeed hold, if an equilibrium has been reached there. If the various parties are satisfied with the territory over which they have been given jurisdiction, then there may indeed be peace. I would say, however, that there are troubling signs that this will not be the case in Bosnia. I am certain that my colleagues have read and heard about many instances of aggressive behavior in the last few days. One involved the touching of a town, by Bosnian Croats, which was slated to be turned over to the Serbs. Can we assume that these horrible actions will not meet with reprisals? Will the Serbs be satisfied that a town allotted to them under the terms of the peace agreement has been destroyed? Will vengeance not be sought at another time and place? I believe it would be highly naive to assume that these activities will cease the moment that United States troops take up their positions in Bosnia. So it should be clear that I am most troubled by the President's decision to send troops to Bosnia. However, I would also say that we do not add to the safety of our troops by withdrawing support from our President at this time. We know from our own tragic experience that no good comes from public disunity between the President and the Congress at such a time as this. To tell the world that America's commitment is soft, that it will be undone once the Congress can prevail over the President in such a matter, is to invite attacks upon our troops, and thereby upon our resolve. Certainly, any potential enemies will seek to test American resolve in Bosnia. ``We must not,'' I say to my colleagues, lay any of the groundwork for those detractors by making it harder for the President to stand by his decisions. The majority leader's resolution, I believe, recognizes that our desire to support our President does not mandate that we simply offer him a blank check to proceed in Bosnia in any which way. This resolution incorporates the insights of our able Majority Leader and others as to the reality that our troops can only safely and profitably be withdrawn once Bosnia can stand on its own without resort to the presence of American support. This requires the training and equipping of aviable Bosnian army. Much of the negotiations between the Congress and the President as to the substance of this resolution have turned on this point. I am pleased to see that we have received a commitment from the White House that America will assume a leading role in training the Bosnian army there. That is the factor which can make it possible for the President to claim this mission as a success upon its conclusion; otherwise we run the risk of simply delaying whatever bloodshed would otherwise occur until the United States withdraws. If we have simply a target date for the hostilities to resume, and we will have accomplished nothing. The work of the majority leader in this area could help to ensure that this mission is not in vain, and that a lasting peace in Bosnia is possible, without a sustained and indefinite American presence. So I commend the resolution offered by Senator Dole and the intrepid and courageous McCain and I urge my colleagues to support it. I trust that my colleagues will agree with me that the task before us--once such a mission is undertaken--is to ensure that it has the greatest possible chance for success. I believe that in this instance, we accomplish this by defining and limiting the nature of the mission in Bosnia, and by providing a strategy leading toward the orderly withdrawal of United States troops from this part of the world. The Dole-McCain resolution surely accomplishes this, and I urge the Senate to adopt it.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, my remarks will last a very few moments. I believe the Senator from Virginia was here before I was and is seeking recognition.

Mr. SIMPSON. No. I will be speaking in accordance with the flag amendment desecration, with Senator Hatch.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I would like to make certain very brief comments on this pending resolution. For a number of years, I have listened and been content--well, not always content, but I have listened--to the heated debate surrounding this amendment, and I now feel compelled to interject some rich personal thoughts of my own. Many of the comments I have heard that are taking issue with this plan to amend the Constitution center around the issue of free speech. Opponents claim that if the flag desecration amendment is adopted, it will chill free speech, or will mean that a small majority will be free to determine exactly what activities constitute desecration. What these often self-proclaimed champions of free speech forget is that certain forms of speech are already regulated, including that category of speech known as fighting words. Back in the 1950's, I was honored to serve my country in the U.S. Army. I served in the infantry in Germany for 2 years, in the 10th Infantry Regiment of the 5th Division, and with the 2d Armored Division, ``Hell on Wheels,'' serving with the 12th Armored Infantry Battalion. Every single day for over 2 years, I got up in the morning and I saluted that flag, marched in military parades behind it, maneuvered with it on the front of an armored personnel carrier, and was ready to die for it. All of us who served in the military did that, for that was our mission. So when I see someone who has never been in the military--oftentimes you see that--and someone who does not have a shred of respect for the country, but much cynicism--throw a flag on the ground and urinate on it, or burn it, and claim he or she is exercising his or her right to free speech, it does rise to the level of fighting words to me, in my book. And I would surely be willing to bet it does in the books of a lot of other law-abiding citizens of this great country. That is where I am coming from, and there are those who have served in the military and those who feel just as strongly on the other side, and I respect those views. But I do have a lot of trouble with people who were never in the military and hearing them express themselves on the issue on either side. That is clear, in my mind. So I more deeply respect the views of those who have worn the colors, who feel just as strongly on the other side, but I have great trouble listening to the prattle of those who have never even served in the Civil Air Patrol. Recently, I read an article on flag desecration by Paul Greenberg in the July 6 copy of the Washington Times. He made several points I think bear reiterating. He claims, in a witty and substantial style, that ``our Intelligentsia'' have done their level best to ``explain to us yokels again and again that burning the flag of the United States isn't an action, but speech, and therefore a constitutionally protected right,'' and they cannot understand why a vast majority of the American public continues to want this amendment. I agree with his conclusion that ``it isn't the idea of desecrating the flag that the American people propose to ban.'' Anyone is free to stand and to state how much they detest the flag, hate the flag and all that it stands for. ``It's the physical desecration of the flag of the United States that ought to be against the law.'' I could not agree more. For as Mr. Greenberg states so eloquently, some things in a civilized society should not be tolerated--such as vandalizing a cemetery, scrawling anti-Semitic slogans on a synagogue, scrawling obscenities on a church, spray-painting a national monument or, surely, for that matter, burning of the American flag. It really ought to be as simple as that. Period. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. This bill would criminalize a so-called partial birth abortion which is defined by the bill as, ``an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.'' Senator Hatch referred to a statement by Dr. Haskell, a physician who has performed many intact D&E abortion procedures, that only about one- third of the fetuses he extracted using the procedure were dead. My question is, in the one-third of the intact D&E abortion procedures he performed where the fetuses were dead, did Dr. Haskell know before beginning the procedure if those fetuses were dead? If he, and any other physicians in this situation, did not, they were taking a risk by beginning a procedure that could be a criminal act under the terms of this bill. The Senator from New Hampshire and others have said that Coreen Costello's abortion was not a partial birth abortion, presumably because she said the ``fetus passed away peacefully in the womb.'' Did the physician know when he began the procedure whether the fetus was alive or dead? If a physician doesn't know for sure before beginning an abortion procedure whether the fetus is alive or dead, wouldn't the physician who starts down the path of performing the procedure be facing the possibility of criminal prosecution under the terms of this bill? In addition, the physician who performed the intact D&E procedure on Mrs. Costello might not be sure when he began the procedure if the fetus would be alive or dead when extracted since there is a range of fetal response to the anesthesia administered in an intact D&E abortion, the procedure that Mrs. Costello underwent. The performance of that procedure might then be considered an attempt at committing a crime even if the fetus turned out to be dead upon delivery. The procedure Mrs. Costello underwent thus could be covered by this bill and the physician that performed it subject to Federal criminal prosecution even if the fetus turned out to be dead when delivered. While banning one abortion procedure, this bill leaves legal other abortion procedures which can be used in later-term pregnancies. Are those other procedures as safe for the mother? Are they any less destructive to the fetus? Why are the other procedures left legal when some have argued they are less safe for the mother, while this one procedure, which some physicians believe is the safest for the mother, is made criminal? These other procedures that are left legal under this bill include inducing labor and delivery with drugs despite evidence of risk to the woman. A caesarean operation called a hysterotomy, which could result in severe bleeding, infection and even death for the woman, is also left legal, even in the third trimester to preserve the woman's life. Another procedure that would be left legal under this bill is called standard D&E which is performed in the second trimester and does not deliver the fetus intact, but removes the fetus from the uterus piece by piece. In conclusion, the Supreme Court has held that States can ban late- term abortions except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health. Forty-one States have done that. But only one State has banned the intact D&E abortion procedure, and that ban is being challenged in the courts. Forty-nine States have not acted to ban intact D&E. The medical profession's own self-regulating system has also not acted to ban intact D&E. The U.S. Senate is not equipped to make this technical medical decision. The bill under consideration today would ban abortions using this procedure even in the second trimester and it does not allow for an exception required by Roe, to preserve a woman's health. Finally, this bill establishes Federal criminal penalties for a specific abortion procedure which may be the safest alternative for the mother while permitting other abortion procedures that could be less safe for the mother. We should leave this issue to the medical profession and the State legislatures, where it now and where it belongs. Exhibit 1 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC, November 6, 1995. Hon. Robert Dole, Majority Leader, Washington, DC. Dear Majority Leader Dole: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), an organization representing more than 35,000 physicians dedicated to improving women's health care, does not support HR 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. The College finds very disturbing that Congress would take any action that would supersede the medical judgment of trained physicians and criminalize medical procedures that may be necessary to save the life of a woman. Moreover, in defining what medical procedures doctors may or may not perform, HR 1833 employs terminology that is not even recognized in the medical community--demonstrating why Congressional opinion should never be substituted for professional medical judgment. Thank you for considering our views on this important matter. Sincerely, Ralph W. Hale, M.D., Executive Director.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feinstein substitute [[Page S 18225]] which is a reiteration of current law. Under the substitute, nothing in Federal law shall be construed to prohibit the States, local governments, local health departments, and medical societies from regulating, restricting, or prohibiting post-viability abortions to the extent permitted by the Constitution. Let me say it again, this is current law and this substitute explicitly states what the law of the land is. Under Roe versus Wade, States may proscribe post-viable abortions except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother--41 States currently regulate post-viable abortions. We do not need H.R. 1833 because we already have current laws which address the central issue of the pending legislation. I have been pro-choice throughout my entire public life, never wavered, never waited to take a poll, ever since that first wrenching debate in the Wyoming State Legislature because our law was the same as Missouri's, which was struck down by Roe versus Wade. And so we had to change it, and we did, and I shall never forget the debate. Abortion is such a deeply personal and, to some, a spiritual issue. It is not one that belongs in the public domain. That is my view. It is not one that should be in a legislative body, to me, as a man--not a legislator, but a man, I cannot presume to limit the options of any woman who is anguishing over a crisis pregnancy. That is what I have always believed, and what I have always tried to state so clearly. And as a man, I do not think a man should even vote on this issue. That is how I feel about this. I do not advocate or promote abortion. It is obviously one of the most difficult choices or options that any woman should ever, ever make. I really do not know many folks who advocate or promote abortion, nor does anybody else in this land. That is not what people do--promote abortion. It is an alternative. It is an option. It is obviously one of the most difficult choices or options that any man or women--sometimes men must make--buy principally the woman. I have always supported alternatives to abortion--and think it is so very important to assure a pregnant woman that there are many alternatives to abortion and that there are many fine support systems available for those who may choose any of the alternatives. And yes, yes, abstinence is still the best, and Who would disagree with that? But that is not what we are talking about. And I respect and am acutely conscious of the fact that many persons who grapple with the issue of abortion do so from very different moral or religious or philosophical differences, and I do not spend any part of my life trying to inflict--and that is the word I want to use-- inflict my personal views on others. I see that happening here. Not with the Senator from New Hampshire, a lovely friend, but from others, especially in the hallways, who do it with steely-eyed zealotry that I tire of. My respect for this very real facet of the human condition has led me to the conclusion that abortion presents a deeply personal decision for any woman--decisions which should not and realistically could not be prescribed or directed through the legislative process in any way. We in the Senate should never be criminalizing a specific medical procedure. That is what the substitute states. So here we are overstepping court cases. There is a strong absence of Government interest in this legislation. It is not here. It purports to prohibit abortions using a particular procedure, and then says abortions will be performed only in a particular manner. There is no reasonable Government interest served by forcing a patient to undergo one type of abortion instead of another, especially if the prohibited procedure is safer for the health of the woman. We in this Congress should not be legislating in this area. This is overreaching in every sense. Under this bill, it would remain legal. Get this--somebody has to really explain this to me. It would remain legal for a woman to obtain this procedure only if she did not cross State lines. This seems to me too clever by half. I thought this was the most horrendous, searing, murderous, vicious procedure that we have seen in modern times, and yet you are going to be able to do it in your own backyard, in your own State. That is absurd. Now we have a new Federal court case, the Lopez decision. That is how they got clever by half on this one. This bill also uses a term I have never before seen in the statute, and I have been doing this for 30 years. Anyone who knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion ``and thereby kills a human fetus.'' That is what it says. ``Abortion is thereby killing.'' On line 15 of the bill, the language reads, ``partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus.'' I have never seen that in my life in a statute. Where did it come from? It is a manifestation of a manipulative group trying to desperately knock off Roe v. Wade. That is what it is. It is exceptionally unclear about the precise nature of the procedure. Six doctors testified they never heard of the procedure before. I sat and listened to that. I have seen all of the pictures before. We are going to have all of them--one-eyed children, brains on the outside, compressed skulls. I have seen it all. I have seen the whole works, always with the eternal difficulty of imposing restrictions on a decision which must be made from one's only very unique position, and principally by a woman, from one's own culture, one's own history, and one's own deep personal and spiritual viewpoint. All through the years I have had the accolades sometimes of being called a baby killer. I really do not appreciate that. I handle it very well now. I just say, I do not have to take that guff from you. So I have been there. In my fine State of Wyoming--and I am going to conclude my remarks within my limit--listen to what we have to do in this. It should not be partisan. And in our State, the Wyoming Republican Party passed a platform plank in 1994 at its State convention that said this: ``The Wyoming Republican Party welcomes individuals on each side of the abortion issue, encourages their open discussion, solicits their active participation in the party, and respects their positions and beliefs.'' Then, do you know what we did? We did a resolution because we had a November resolution on the ballot which was soundly rejected. Here is what it said: ``The Republican Party believes that Republicans are people of principle on each side of the abortion issue who firmly and intractably hold their beliefs; by establishing a party position, we recognize that a resolution will never change these beliefs, but it will serve to divide the party on other issues, and we urge all Republicans to firmly debate these beliefs.'' That passed unanimously by voice vote. We ought to do more of that in America. And men, in my mind, should never be in this intensely intimate personal struggle for a woman. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the substitute.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the Safe Drinking Water Act is important to every community in this country--large or small--rich or poor. This public health statute ensures that our citizens have clean water to drink when they turn on the tap. But this law is important for another reason as well--it can be very costly for small rural communities that simply do not have the financial resources necessary to comply with many of the stringent standards and monitoring requirements required by the act. All of us in Congress have been sensitized to the issue of unfunded Federal mandates because of the regulatory excesses brought out by the previous reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Clinton administration makes the claim that Republicans don't care about the environment but that is pure balderdash. We care about the environment just as much and we are passing this legislation because we do care. We also care about real people--cities and small towns--and that is why we are putting some common sense back into the law. The environmental groups may think that unfunded mandates are part of what they call an unholy trinity, but I can tell you that to a Member of Congress this issue is a very real concern. When I travel around my State and stop in small towns I always hear complaints about the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act and unfunded mandates. The last time we reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water Act we caused a near crisis in small town America. Thousands of small towns are financially unable to meet Federal drinking water requirements and need help finding less expensive ways to make their water safe to drink. A recent GAO report said that meeting Federal drinking water standards is an acute problem for around 50,000 small communities that account for 90 percent of the drinking water violations. We need to find more cost- effective ways to provide these small towns with safe drinking water or we are going to be wholly discredited in the eyes of the American public. The EPA estimates that it will cost small communities $3 billion to comply with current Federal drinking water regulations and another $20 billion to repair and replace and expand their current drinking water infrastructure and to meet future needs. It has been estimated that 70 percent of the costs will be incurred by small communities that account for 10 percent of the population. These communities cannot afford that kind of expense and I don't think a simple revolving loan fund will help enough. Neither the Federal Government nor the States have developed policies that will reduce costs through less expensive technology or development of better financing and funding mechanisms. This situation must be remedied. We need to make direct grants to small communities along with a loan program and more importantly we need to revise monitoring requirements and change the ways standards are being set. The bill we are considering is an improvement in this regard, but I don't think it goes far enough. The environmental groups have taken a paternalistic approach to this issue and they don't believe the States should be given flexibility in carrying out the act. This isn't the classic case where it is industry versus the greenies. This is Governors, mayors, State legislators, and water administrators saying ``Congress must do something radical to fix this program or we are going to go broke.'' I don't think the committee bill goes as far as I would have liked in directing EPA to consider cost and good science, but I think the final version represents a genuine effort to improve current law and it will cause EPA to take a more realistic approach to the standard setting issue in the future. For this reason I intend to vote for this bill and I trust the President will sign it when Congress sends it on to the White House.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I wish to make a few remarks about the Highway Bill conference report we are considering today. The Highway Bill is so very critical for my State of Wyoming. We need to complete action on this legislation very soon in order that funds can be released for badly needed projects in all the States. In the west our highways have become more and more important as we have observed the effects of airline deregulation and the reduction in rail service in our rural States. Airline deregulation has led to a dramatic decrease in the number of carriers and flights into Wyoming and we have nearly lost all Amtrak service. So the interstate and State Highways System was and is--and always will be our great lifeline. Because highways are so very important to us the State of Wyoming has proposed to add three significant road segments to the National Highway System in order to link several other primary and secondary highways. The Wyoming delegation has contacted the Federal Highway Administrator regarding this proposal and we trust he will give it every proper consideration. When people travel in Wyoming, for the most part they drive--and they usually drive for long distances. We have highways that stretch for miles with no habitation at all in between. It is understandable that we are so ``put off'' by a national speed limit. I am so pleased to see that the conference agreement repeals the national speed limit. I think that the individual States are quite able to set speed limits that provide for a safe speed given local conditions. The same holds true for seat belt laws and helmet laws. I believe the States are able to determine on their own if they want these laws and how they should be administered without the intrusion of the Federal Government and the threat of Federal sanctions. I trust we will swiftly pass this legislation and get it onto the President's desk so that we can get about the business of maintaining our present National Highway System and constructing the additional mileage as we require it. Those of us from the western States of high altitude and low multitude understand the real necessity of passing this important legislation and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, what an extraordinary and remarkable day. We are all somewhat weary--and, yes, greatly frustrated--from events of the past few days. But we should not let our fatigue--or our frustration from dealing with politicos at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue--diminish the importance of the moment. At the close of this debate, we will be privileged to vote on a budget which--get this, for the very first time in my 17 years here-- actually balances the budget on a date certain. No more smoke and mirrors! No tricks. No more accept short term expedients now--with the understanding that necessary trimming will follow later. We have finally learned better; finally, we do understand. And, finally, we are actually going to do it! We are going to balance this budget! A good day! Everyone in this chamber knows my views on the subject of a balanced budget. Everyone knows that I passionately believe that the one way-- the only way--to get to a balanced budget is to gain control over this so-called entitlement spending. That's a belief borne of very careful study--study which Senator Bob Kerry and I undertook in service on the Entitlement Reform Commission. But the view that we must gain control over entitlement spending in order to balance the budget is not merely a belief. At this point, I think all Senators might agree that, as a matter of absolute fact, entitlement spending reform is the only way we can get from here to there. The fact that all now seem to agree on that point--and on the point that we must stop borrowing indefinitely from future generations--shows how far we, and the American people, have come in just a few years. I wish this consensus might have arrived sooner, but I'm surely pleased it is here now. In light of the relative consensus on the ``big picture,'' and in view of the limited time available for us to debate this historic Balanced Budget Act, I will not talk long on the overarching issues. But I will say this: we are taking an action today which comes closer than anything we could ever do--short of voting on a war resolution--to determining the day-to-day quality of life of future generations of Americans. This is not hyperbole or overstatement. This is not hype or hoorah! Without the action we take today, our grandchildren, and their children, face a future of bankruptcy, hyperinflation, and financial and fiscal chaos. By taking some relatively painless steps today--and, please, let's be honest on this point: the savings we will approve today are relatively painless when you consider the magnitude of the deficit and debt confronting us--we deflect away that otherwise certain, and bleak, future. The savings measures we will approved today are relatively painless-- so much so that it is amazing, and so regrettable, that we have waited so long to act. To illustrate, let me outline for you what the Committee on Veterans Affairs--the Committee I am honored to Chair--has approved. I think you will agree that the route to a balanced budget that the Veterans Committee was able to reach imposes no great hardship on the Nation's veterans. Title X of the bill--entitled ``Veterans and Related Provisions''-- defines what veterans must contribute to help us achieve a balanced budget. The measures we have approved can be viewed in three clusters: First, we would reenact a number of money saving provisions that have previously been approved in prior Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Acts-- We would continue, for example, to require that some, but only some, veterans pay small per diems for hospital and outpatient care, and small added co-payments for prescription medications dispensed for the treatment of non-service-connected disabilities; veterans with profound service-connected disabilities, and low income veterans, would continue to be exempted. We would continue, with respect to VA-treated veterans who have health insurance, to authorize VA to collect fees from those insurance carriers for non-service-connected treatment. We would continue to allow VA to ``verify,'' through access to IRS and Social Security records, the incomes of veterans who apply for means-tested VA benefits. We would continue to limit means-tested VA payments to veterans who are in Medicaid-financed nursing home care while still assuring completely that the real benefit paid to, and retained by, the veteran is not diminished. We would continue to require that veterans who receive the benefits of VA mortgage loan guarantees pay reasonable fees. Finally, we would continue to allow VA to take reasonable steps to minimize its losses when the home loans it guarantees go into default. These provisions, as a group, would allow VA to save $2.799 billion over the next 7 years. 2.799 billion bucks simply from extending the effect of provisions that have previously been enacted. [[Page S 17314]] These provisions, I daresay, would not harm veterans. I can say, Mr. President, that no veteran would be harmed by these measures based on our experience on the Veterans Committee. For what is left unsaid in the context of continuing previously-approved OBRA provisions is as important as what is said. The OBRA provisions that we would extend today are ones which experience has already shown are relatively painless to the Nation's veterans and which have, therefore, achieved good bipartisan consensus within the Veterans Committee. They are even accepted by the Nations's veterans service organizations-- organizations that are not always easily pleased, I would remind! Provisions in prior Budget Reconciliation Acts that were more controversial--for example, a provision setting a ceiling on benefits paid to an incompetent veteran who has no dependents and whose assets exceed $25,000--are not in the package before the Senate today. Second, this package of veterans-related measures would adopt two new provisions that are relatively non-controversial, but which are highly significant in terms of the savings to be gained. Title X would reimpose a common sense legal standard for compensation to VA patients who are injured in VA hospitals. What standard would we impose? The very same standard which applies, insofar as we have been able to determine, at every other hospital in America. We would require that a patient show that any harm that was visited upon him or her in a VA hospital was the result of VA fault. Recovery would be allowed only if that fault could be shown. In addition, we would require VA to ``round down'' the compensation and survivors' benefits which are adjusted annually to account for increases in the cost of living. What do I mean by this? Traditionally, when VA recomputed benefits amounts--which are paid in whole dollar amounts--it rounded up when the recomputed benefit equaled a fractional dollar amount of 50 cents or more, and it ``rounded down'' when that amount was 49 cents or less. The bill before the Senate today would require that VA ``round down'' in all cases. * * * * * I approved of these provisions--championed by my friend, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the committee's ranking member--when they were before the committee. They were then--and they are now--wholly reasonable mechanisms for saving almost $1 billion over a 7-year period. Indeed, in my view, they are preferable to the alternative measures adopted by the House. But they simply were not acceptable to the chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Congressman Bob Stump, or to the ranking member of that committee, Congressman G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery, for whom the Montgomery GI bill is named. My respect, admiration, and regard for Sonny Montgomery--who will retire after the 104th Congress and who will be deeply missed by all--impelled me to recommend that the Senate conferees recede to the House view on this matter if we could ``make up the difference'' in other ways. We did. In place of the Montgomery GI bill provisions, the conferees accepted two House-approved provisions which, collectively, will save almost the full necessary $1 billion. First, we would raise the prescription * * * * * Mr. President, those who hear these comments may infer that I am not fully pleased with each and every aspect of the veterans' provisions in this bill. If they infer that, they will be correct. I particularly regret the provision relating to survivors' COLAs--though I do not think it is patently unfair. It is regrettable, but not unfair. As we all know, however, rarely is a given piece of legislation pleasing in all respects. This legislation is, however, almost without precedent in its importance. And it is not--it is not--unfair to the Nation's veterans, or to their widows, orphans or families. No--veterans, their widows, and their families will benefit, as will all Americans, from deficit control--and from the jobs, low interest rates, low inflation, and future prosperity which hinge on deficit control. We are doing no less today than trying to save this great country as we know it. We veterans fought for that very cause. I know all veterans will join now--as we all did when we were called to arms--in defense of the Nation, and to assure peace, prosperity, and stability for our children and grandchildren. Mr. President, I appreciate the time I have been afforded to address these critical issues, and I yield back the balance of my time.