Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, all Senators have until 5 p.m. today in order to file first-degree amendments to the pending Dole-Johnston substitute to S. 343, the regulatory reform bill.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we are going to hold hearings on this. Those hearings will be held in my Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy. We are going to take this one very seriously. There is no need to talk about what is going to happen to the environment because of methane gas in cows, and how much propellant is in the bottom of the shaving cream can, when the population of the Earth will double in the next 40 years, and how many footprints will the Earth hold. It is very simple.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I certainly concur. I look forward to working with my friend from New Mexico. Hearings will start next week, and we will be about our business. That is something that is very clear.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, finally, just a word about this remarkable woman who leaves our midst in the Senate family. That is Abby, known to most Members as Abby. Abby Saffold, schoolteacher, parole officer--I think perhaps she was that while she was in the Senate, as I think of it--for in many cases, as we would come in the door and we would say, ``When is the next vote, Abby? When are we going to get out of here Friday,'' and ``What is next week's schedule?'' There she was, with that very genial and very, very steady manner, sharing her remarkable expertise of the Senate. She was trained well by Senator Robert Byrd and others. She did it all, and she did it very well. I would just like to wish her well and say that the most single particular thing for me about Abby was, whether I was in the minority or the majority, I was treated exactly the same--with courtesy, with intelligence, with good, rich, knowledge of the Senate. I think that is the tribute to her, because there are those--not just staff, but those of us who are known simply as principals--who, when we are riding high in the majority, really do lay it on. Then, when we get in the minority, we kind of whimper and whine a bit. I have been in both places. To Abby, the tribute is the courtesy that she extended to all, regardless of party, regardless of philosophy, and I certainly wish her well. Knowing her, she will be doing some things that will be very pleasing and important and satisfying to her. God bless her. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, just a few words about various things. First, with regard to the efforts of Senator Hatch, Senator Dole, and others, on both sides of the aisle, including Senator Johnston, with regard to regulatory reform, I think it is very vital that we continue our efforts in a bipartisan way on this issue. It is a very simple issue out in the land. People are pretty well fed up with the quality and quantity of regulations over the years that have been ground out by the Federal Government. It is long past time that we did something to interject common sense and sound science into the regulatory process, and the bill that Senator Dole, [[Page S 9730]] Senator Hatch, and Senator Johnston put together will really go a very long way in doing that. We have tried to ensure that Members on both sides of the aisle make their concerns known about various provisions in the legislation. We have worked very hard to include everyone. It is time to start walking the walk instead of talking the talk. So I hope we will continue our vigorous efforts. We have seen in Wyoming so many issues with regard to coal mining. We are the largest coal-producing State in the Union; yet, we would have EPA come to our State where we have laws that are more strict than the Federal Government, and come to the mining area and set up air quality monitors for things like ``fugitive dust,'' in an area where the wind blows 60 miles an hour three times a week and will peel the vegetation right off the prairie. They set up their monitors and tell us about regulating and reducing fugitive dust. This is absolutely absurd. It reflects no common sense. Some EPA regulators are people of zeal, without any intellectual understanding of others or of their situation. Remember, too, that this community of Congress is populated by privileged people, many of whom have never met a payroll, many of whom know nothing about real life or how to work--really work--digging a ditch, tamping concrete forms, working for a construction company, cowboying--enough. I think it is time to give them a wake-up call, and I think we will do that. Hopefully, we will, at the same time, try to deter the trend in this country that has been to try to get every single chemical out of every food, drink, and tube of lipstick known to man or woman. That type of activity causes our society to shoulder exorbitant costs that are just not necessary--$140 billion year on pollution control. We must decide how much will we spend to get the last 5 percent of the pollution out of the smokestack or the waste stream, because it is those expenditures that are so excessive. We are being forced to recognize that the really tough choices are now unavoidable. The administration and the environmental groups have been critical of our efforts to mandate that risk assessment and cost benefit analysis be used by the bureaucracy. But even the Washington Post stated in a recent editorial: ``Surely it makes sense to do the kind of analysis that weighs one health threat against another, and shows where reductions in pollution will pay off most effectively in lower rates of illness and death.'' And the Post editorial goes on to correctly recognize that the regulatory reform bill ``. . . addresses defects . . . that are real.'' And ``within it lies the genuine opportunity to strengthen the protection of the country's air and water.'' I find it disturbing that the environmental groups have run radio ads attacking Members of Congress who support this legislation. These ads greatly oversimplify the issues we are considering and as usual the environmental groups are using fear and emotion to try and turn the public against regulatory reform efforts. So when I hear groups say this is a back door assault on our environmental and health laws I recognize that they are resorting to what Senator Gary Hart used to call ``Mau Mau politics.'' This kind of activity is real quite uncalled for. I am fond of saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but nobody is entitled to their own facts. And the fact is that injecting sound science into the regulatory process can enhance our efforts to protect the public health and the environment. We have a real opportunity to stop the tendency that Federal regulators have to overreact to any newly discovered dangers by diverting disproportionate financial and human resources into hastily conceived remedies. We have seen examples of that with superfund, or the asbestos in schools program and in so many other areas. In the case of asbestos in schools we were told we had to get the asbestos out or we were going to kill or injure all the children. So Congress rushed to pass a law and the regulators issued regulations and we began a rush job to get the asbestos removed. But what we ended up doing was to release more asbestos into the air and to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in remediation costs. And more importantly, we have inadvertently exposed more children to more asbestos and greater risk than if we had simply left it in place and contained it. So that is the type of thing that we want to avoid in the future and risk assessment and cost benefit analysis will help do that. Some in Congress and in the bureaucracy have tried to provide the public with a risk free environment. That is a purely quixotic exercise. We cannot afford to provide a risk free environment and in fact it is not possible to do that in the real world. So let us recognize that and get on with the business of making certain that logical and well informed regulatory decisions are made in the future. We cannot do that without passing legislation such as the Dole bill and I am so very pleased that we are finally going to do something constructive with regard to regulatory reform since we can no longer afford to live with the status quo. We will hear a metric ton of the tired old rhetoric about how we must protect the children and save the babies. How if we tinker with the current regulatory regime we will cripple the bureaucracy and cause regulatory gridlock. We will hear that it is arrogant to assign a value for human life, or that this is just an attempt to let industry and curses--big business--off the hook. But Mr. President, this is beginning to sound like the boy who cried wolf too many times. The American people are more sophisticated than that. They have heard these tired old phrases time after time. They are beginning to tune it out. They are suffering from what one journalist calls ``environmental compassion fatigue.'' So I trust the larger majority of Senators will not view this as a partisan issue or as an industry versus environmental group issue. But as a chance to help everyday citizens to get sensible and understandable regulations, based on real costs, risks, and common sense--in order that we can restore some of the credibility that the Federal agencies and Congress have lost over the years. This debate is about change. Bureaucrats don't like change. And this administration doesn't like any change that they didn't think of first. But we must overcome this aversion to constructive change with goodwill, facts, common sense, and perseverance. So I trust my colleagues will put aside partisan rhetoric and fear mongering and we will all join together to truly reform our regulatory system for the benefit of a majority of the American people. They do not expect anything less from us, and I do trust we will not disappoint them.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, with regard to Vietnam, I fully understand the heartfelt emotions and strong feelings which surround the normalization. Obviously we do, especially the delicate and painful issue of the POW/MIA's. Nobody, nobody in their right mind wants Americans who fought for their country to be forgotten or abandoned, and in no way do I nor do any of my colleagues in this body want our Nation to forget any possible remaining POW/MIA's. I have always said this. If there is proof of any Americans--any of them--being held against their will--proof--we should get them out right now. I was involved in this process many years ago with Senator Cranston, my friend from California. We held hearings. I will never forget the gentleman, or I will say the chap, whatever lesser degree I can work up, who came before the Senate and said he had 287 minutes of a movie of someone in a cage imprisoned in Vietnam. We said, well, we would hope that you would produce that. He said, I will for 2 million bucks. I think that is the closest I came to fisticuffs, at least in these recent times, with that person. Absolutely absurd and disgusting. He said he had these films and, of course, he did not, and then, of course, we had pictures of people in uniform with weapons, and then upon close examination we would find they were taken in Hawaii or some other country in Southeast Asia. Absolutely absurd and disgusting. We said, ``You show us where they are and we will get them.'' I just believe we need to be very honest where we are with this gut-wrenching issue. [[Page S 9731]] Last year, I applauded the President's decision to announce the lifting of the trade embargo, especially in view of the fact that this has been such a painful issue for him, due to the previous campaign scrutiny of his antiwar efforts during the Vietnam conflict. I am pleased that he did not shirk from the responsibility of doing what he felt was right, even though it was not necessarily popular with all the groups. I visited Vietnam with some of my distinguished colleagues and saw personally the vast improvements taking place. Firsthand, I saw the continued progress in the area of human rights. In my opinion, the best way to encourage the Vietnamese to continue along this path of redemption is by establishing these full diplomatic relations with the Vietnamese Government. As a veteran myself, it is time to continue to march forward regarding this issue. Ever more effectively and positively we will learn about more of the POW/MIA issue, if business people, diplomats, military, American visitors travel and talk with Vietnamese all over that country. Much will be gained by a larger United States presence in Vietnam. Gaining information about POW/MIA's has been exceedingly difficult without an embassy or other contacts since 1975. Remember that, as we stiffed Vietnam for 18 years, we received nothing--nothing--in the way of cooperation, nothing in the way of information. Ever since we loosened our grip, much has come forward. While we speak of the POW/MIA's with great, great compassion, it would be interesting to me to know what happened to the 86,700 people missing in action from the Second World War. Who is out speaking for them, and raising money in the process? Or the 9,000 or 8,700 missing in action from the Korean war. Who is speaking for them? There had been an unfortunate test case of keeping the issue alive, with some groups, at least, with regard to their own personal gratification, and of course the aspects of the fundraising. It is going to be a good thing. I commend the President. We will now be the 161st country to recognize Vietnam. Hear that. Normalization of the United States and Vietnam puts the United States on the list at No. 161. Because currently, 160 countries, including all of our major trading partners, have full diplomatic relations with Vietnam, providing their country's companies and citizens with a key political entry for vital decisions of procurement, vital decisions as to travel and intercourse among nations. I want to commend the VFW. I am a lifetime member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, who said last month that, ``We are of the opinion if normalizing relations with Vietnam furthers the process toward the fullest possible accounting''--meaning POW/MIA's-- ``then we would support this decision.'' I want to commend our sturdy friends, John McCain, John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, for taking the courageous position they have on this issue. Would it not have been for them, it would not have come to this point. All three serve as a remarkable testimony toward doing the right thing, putting the past aside, moving forward. That is what life is all about--change, moving forward, maturing.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am so very pleased to join with my fine colleagues in paying tribute to one great fellow, my friend, James D. Wolfensohn, as he takes on the tremendous task of being president of the World Bank. That is a capacity he is well suited for--it truly merges his vast expertise in finance, his marvelous capability in public service, and his generous and caring nature. I have no doubt at all he will be a good and powerful force at that institution. But he will certainly be deeply missed at the Kennedy Center. I have the richest and soundest respect for Jim Wolfensohn. He has worked doggedly on behalf of the Kennedy Center for the past 5 years-- and he loved it and he did it for free. His staff is aggressive and competent and under his very sharp eye and supervision--they have cultivated and nurtured the Kennedy Center into its original status as a first-class arts institution of rare and abiding quality. Jim truly stands head and shoulders above the rest--and above the fray. His splendid leadership will be sorely missed by those of us in the Senate who remain committed to ensuring the future of an appealing and vibrant Kennedy Center. God bless Jim and his bright and gracious wife Elaine as they embark on this new and vitally important mission.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have been here 16-plus years. There are a lot of people who do a lot of work in this place, but the senior Senator from New Mexico is, in my estimation, much like a true patriot. He practically has given his life to the budget and he has learned it, and I think we must respect him. My good colleague from Nebraska, who came here when I did, has dedicated a lot of his energy and time. But, ladies and gentlemen, this is it. Either we start now or we leave nothing --nothing--for people between 18 and 45, because when they are 63, the cupboard will be picked clean: Medicare broke in 7 years, disability insurance broke in 2016, Social Security itself broke in the year 2031. Who is telling us that? Appointees of the President of the United States. So this is it. No more fun and games. No smoke and mirrors. Step up to the plate. Buy--the things are on me. I have heard many criticisms of this budget from the other side of the aisle, but even the harshest critics of the budget admit that its numbers are honest, indeed conservative, and there is no ``smoke and mirrors'' employed here to create an illusion of balancing the budget. To put it very simply, if we and future Congresses adhere to the requirements of this budget, we will get the job done. I will only take a short time to review where we are with respect to the economic future of this country. We currently have a national debt approaching $5 trillion. Early in the next century, the baby boom generation will begin to retire, and this will place untold strains on our working population. By the year 2013, under current law, the Social Security System will begin to experience a deficit, and we will have to cut benefits or raise payroll taxes to meet that challenge. Also under current law, by the year 2002, Medicare will be broke--flat broke. I have heard it said--even the President has said it--that 7 years' time is ``too short'' a time in which to force the budget into balance. I cannot understand this. Where in the world will we find the money to provide for the baby boomers' retirement and health costs if we continue to use up the Federal budget with ever-increasing interest payments? If we do not balance the budget shortly after the turn of the century, we will never do it. I have reviewed this budget conference report unusually carefully, even skeptically, because of the great importance that I attach to meeting this dire situation now, and meeting it properly. I have been greatly concerned about doing anything in the way of tax cuts that could undermine the objective of reaching a balanced budget. My colleagues well know that I joined with 11 other Republicans in signing a letter urging Senator Domenici and the conferees to uphold the Senate's CBO-certification provision. This would verify that we are on course to balancing the budget before permitting any tax decreases. I am greatly pleased that the certification mechanism is a component of this conference agreement. It is, however, in slightly different form than it was in the original Senate version, so I believe it is necessary to review the substance of what we are talking about, in order to more fully explain my support for this agreement. We have been told by various economists, and by the Congressional Budget Office, that certain benefits will accrue from balancing the budget. Economic activity will increase, investment in our economy will increase, growth will increase, and interest rates will drop due to a lessening of the pressures of debt. All of this will tend to bring in more revenue to the Federal Government. It is reasonable to ask what we would do with that revenue if it did materialize. It seemed only proper that the revenue should be returned to fortify and strengthen the private economy from which it came, to be given back to the hard-working American families who created it, rather than to give it to Government to spend. This was the origin of the provision in the Senate budget resolution. Estimates were that a dividend of $170 billion would be created if we did our work properly and balanced the budget. So we would--in the original Senate provision--therefore have permitted $170 billion in tax decreases to be enacted if we were indeed on course to balance. Now, let me sound a note of caution here, that note of skepticism-- that ornery Wyoming strain. It's in each of us who is from the land of high altitude and low multitude. It has not escaped my attention that even the CBO certification of an economic dividend would be something of a speculation. We would be projecting the economic benefit, and allowing ourselves to commit to returning it before it had all completely materialized. Future Congresses could ``chicken out,'' could fail to follow through with the spending cuts. CBO certification would not bind future Congresses. We would still have the chance to hand out the tax goodies, to fail to finish all of the spending cuts in the out-years, and make the debt problem worse. But this is where my position on the Finance Committee comes in. I remind my colleagues that the work of making the promise of this budget resolution a reality will be done in the reconciliation process. and I am going to work doggedly to ensure that when the Finance Committee makes changes in our entitlement programs to meet the terms of this conference report, that we lock in all of that reduced growth carefully. Because if we do that, we will do a great deal to slow future Government spending--even if future Congresses fail to hold to our restraints on appropriations. Although the conference did retain the Senate provision requiring a CBO certification before proceeding with revenue decreases, I was initially concerned upon reading that the total amount of the tax cuts in the conference report would be $245 billion, somewhat higher than the $170 billion figure which we understood to be the size of the dividend projected by CBO. However, I am satisfied that this budget conference report will indeed bring us to a balanced budget if we adhere to its terms, and I intend to help Finance Committee chairman, Bob Packwood, to do just that in the entitlements and tax area. One key is that not more than $50 billion of the tax cuts can be concentrated in the year 2002. If we enact more than that, then the budget will not be balanced in 2002, the target year. The tax cuts must be spread out over the 7 years properly in order to meet this objective, and I have every confidence that we in the finance committee can accomplish this. As we pass this conference report, I would remind my colleagues again that [[Page S 9406]] the real tough work of balancing the budget still awaits us in the future. We in the Finance Committee will still have to enact the restraints on entitlement programs, and this and future Congresses must adhere to the plan for reducing annual appropriations. Only if we do this can we have the balanced budget and the tax relief at the same time. While no budget conference report can guarantee that this work will be done properly, I believe that the conference report gives us our best chance to do the job. The numbers are tough, realistic, conservative. If tax relief stimulates additional economic growth, speeds it to the rates assumed by President Clinton in his own budget proposal, then we will perhaps advance even faster toward the target of a balanced budget. That its a real possibility, given the tough assumptions used by CBO and our budget negotiators. In all cases, it is clear that this budget is far preferable to the status quo, and this is why I will vote for it. The status quo would permit absolutely intolerable increases in spending, particularly entitlement spending. We cannot afford growth rates of 10 percent per year in these programs. But that is what we will continue if we defeat this agreement. I therefore urge the adoption of this conference report and I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill for private relief of a citizen who has fallen victim both to the 1988 Yellowstone fires and to an insensitive Government bureaucracy. The tragic Yellowstone ``Mink'' Forest Fire of 1988 devastated Nathan Vance's outfitting business when it burned through his Teton wilderness camp. The fire destroyed essential outfitting equipment, forcing Nathan Vance to cancel 12 prepaid trips and to forfeit valuable revenue from those trips. Mr. Vance incurred both equipment replacement costs and lost revenue, a deadly combination to a small, seasonal business with a small profit margin even in the best of times. This legislation would compensate him for the equipment losses he suffered--as the Congress had intended when it passed the original legislation following those tragic fires. That law, Public Law 101-302, authorized the Forest Service to settle certain personal damage claims from the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Mr. Vance mailed his claim on August 19, 1990 to meet the August 23 deadline. Through no fault of his own, it took 5 business days for Nate Vance's letter to travel from Wyoming to Utah--longer than it takes a letter to reach Washington, DC from San Francisco, CA. The Forest Service officially received the Vance claim less than 24 hours after the deadline. The Forest Service initially seemed unconcerned by the deadline and continued the claim process by asking Mr. Vance to provide a detailed accounting of his lost equipment and revenue. More than 3 months after the Forest Service received his accounting and appeared ready to pay the claim, Mr. Vance was informed by a Forest Service employee that his claim was invalid because of the missed deadline. Mr. Vance has since attempted to appeal to the Forest Service, but has been met with repeated refusals. Public Law 101-302 states the ``Forest Service is directed to negotiate, compromise, and reach a determination on the original claims.'' It is clear that the Forest Service failed to negotiate, to compromise, or reach a determination even when directly ordered by law to do so--all based on unusually slow mail service. The tragic combination of a devastating forest fire and Government insensitivity has turned Mr. Vance's life upside down. He is still struggling to pay the additional mortgages on his home and on the business assets he was forced to assume in order to continue his business. Nate Vance's story is an unnecessary and an unintended inequity. Insensitive Government actions contributed to his hardship through an unreasonable and unresponsive process. We should not allow Government to forget that we are here to ``serve'' the people, not to impose unfair burdens upon them. This legislation will allow us to ease part of the unfair burden imposed on Nate Vance by requiring the Secretary to pay Mr. Vance $4,850 which is authorized under section 1304--the judgments, awards, and compromised settlements section--of title 31 of the United States Code. This amount represents his equipment loss and is the amount that would have been approved if the postal service had taken 4 rather than 5 days to deliver his claim from Wyoming to its adjacent neighbor, Utah.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill for private relief of a citizen who has fallen victim both to the 1988 Yellowstone fires and to an insensitive Government bureaucracy. The tragic Yellowstone ``Mink'' Forest Fire of 1988 devastated Nathan Vance's outfitting business when it burned through his Teton wilderness camp. The fire destroyed essential outfitting equipment, forcing Nathan Vance to cancel 12 prepaid trips and to forfeit valuable revenue from those trips. Mr. Vance incurred both equipment replacement costs and lost revenue, a deadly combination to a small, seasonal business with a small profit margin even in the best of times. This legislation would compensate him for the equipment losses he suffered--as the Congress had intended when it passed the original legislation following those tragic fires. That law, Public Law 101-302, authorized the Forest Service to settle certain personal damage claims from the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Mr. Vance mailed his claim on August 19, 1990 to meet the August 23 deadline. Through no fault of his own, it took 5 business days for Nate Vance's letter to travel from Wyoming to Utah--longer than it takes a letter to reach Washington, DC from San Francisco, CA. The Forest Service officially received the Vance claim less than 24 hours after the deadline. The Forest Service initially seemed unconcerned by the deadline and continued the claim process by asking Mr. Vance to provide a detailed accounting of his lost equipment and revenue. More than 3 months after the Forest Service received his accounting and appeared ready to pay the claim, Mr. Vance was informed by a Forest Service employee that his claim was invalid because of the missed deadline. Mr. Vance has since attempted to appeal to the Forest Service, but has been met with repeated refusals. Public Law 101-302 states the ``Forest Service is directed to negotiate, compromise, and reach a determination on the original claims.'' It is clear that the Forest Service failed to negotiate, to compromise, or reach a determination even when directly ordered by law to do so--all based on unusually slow mail service. The tragic combination of a devastating forest fire and Government insensitivity has turned Mr. Vance's life upside down. He is still struggling to pay the additional mortgages on his home and on the business assets he was forced to assume in order to continue his business. Nate Vance's story is an unnecessary and an unintended inequity. Insensitive Government actions contributed to his hardship through an unreasonable and unresponsive process. We should not allow Government to forget that we are here to ``serve'' the people, not to impose unfair burdens upon them. This legislation will allow us to ease part of the unfair burden imposed on Nate Vance by requiring the Secretary to pay Mr. Vance $4,850 which is authorized under section 1304--the judgments, awards, and compromised settlements section--of title 31 of the United States Code. This amount represents his equipment loss and is the amount that would have been approved if the postal service had taken 4 rather than 5 days to deliver his claim from Wyoming to its adjacent neighbor, Utah.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of Dr. Henry Foster's nomination to be Surgeon General. Since February 2, when President Clinton first announced his nominee for Surgeon General, a wide range of criticisms and attacks have been leveled against Dr. Foster. I believed and said from the very beginning Dr. Foster deserved the same chance as every other nominee to address these concerns in a committee hearing. That indeed is the reason for the hearing process. I further stated that, although I had not yet found any valid reason to oppose Dr. Foster's nomination, I would withhold my final decision until after the committee hearings were held. Now that the hearings are concluded, I have decided that I will vote in support of Dr. Foster's nomination. I believe any questions as to whether or not Dr. Foster is fit or qualified for this position were dispelled during the hearings. I think it is fair to say that this was never the chief concern about the nomination. I realize that there are some people who oppose his nomination because he, like many obstetrician-gynecologists, performed abortions in the practice of his profession. However, I do not believe Dr. Foster should be disqualified from serving as Surgeon General solely because he performed abortions. We face the possibility of such a history whenever we consider an obstetrician-gynecologist for this position. Much has been said about Dr. Foster's ``credibility'' due to some initial confusion about how many abortions he performed in the course of practicing his profession for more than 20 years. Dr. Foster addressed these concerns honestly and forthrightly in his opening statement before the Labor and Human Resources Committee. In that statement, he asserts that: I regret the initial confusion on this issue. But there was never any intent to deceive. I had no reason to do so * * *. I have worked very hard to establish a record of credibility and ethical conduct. It is open to anyone who chooses to scrutinize it. I think that those of us in public life should be able to eternally empathize with him about the difficulty of ``getting it exactly right'' when speaking to a reporter. Not only did Dr. Foster address the ``credibility issue'' in his statement, but he also outlined what kind of Surgeon General he says he will be and how he intends to focus on the ``full range of health challenges'' facing our Nation, including cancer, AIDS, heart disease, maternal and child health, aging, substance abuse, violence, and teen pregnancy. [[Page S 8741]] Another issue raised during the hearings was the question of whether or not Dr. Foster had personal knowledge prior to 1972 of the ``Tuskegee study'' in which black men were denied treatment for syphilis in order that doctors could observe how the disease progressed. This experiment was abruptly terminated in 1972 when it was publicly disclosed that then-available treatments were being withheld from these men. When questioned at the hearings, Dr. Foster stated emphatically that he had no knowledge of the study before 1972. In fact, Dr. Foster never approved of or in any way cooperated with this study. In 1972, when he was fully informed of it, he immediately called for the study to be stopped and for the surviving men to be treated. The real issue about this nomination, for me, is not ``the bad things'' Dr. Foster did not do, but the many noble, altruistic things he has done. I have had several opportunities to visit personally with Dr. Foster and to question him on various issues. He described to me his work with disadvantaged youths and the role he played in creating the ``I Have a Future'' Program that encourages teens in some of Nashville's toughest housing projects to be sexually abstinent and to avoid drugs. I am impressed by the fact that Dr. Foster has spent his lifetime preaching abstinence. It is not just a slogan or a high-minded phrase for him. He has been right down in the trenches helping some of the poorest people in society. Many lives, including hundreds of young people, have been touched by Dr. Foster's work in his community. He is a good and generous man. Dr. Foster's philosophy emphasizes delaying sexual activity, providing education and job training, and ensuring access to comprehensive health services. Not only has he been successful in reducing teen pregnancy, but he has also helped to instill the values of personal responsibility, belief in God, and self-esteem in many young people who live in absolute poverty and are most ``at risk.'' Many of those youth traveled to Washington this past winter to express their admiration and respect for Dr. Foster. All anyone had to do was listen to their personal stories to understand how Dr. Foster has made a profound impact on their lives. Dr. Foster is one of the leading experts on, and advocates for, maternal and child health, and has developed and directed teen pregnancy and drug abuse prevention programs that bolster self-esteem, and encourage personal responsibility. He has had a distinguished career as a physician and community leader, and I believe he is a very qualified nominee who will make an outstanding Surgeon General. Finally, I would implore my colleagues to at the very least bring this man's nomination to a vote. I know that many in my party are displeased by the way the administration failed to display all relevant information about this nomination. And, I know that many have strongly held views about abortion. But, do not make this man the victim of those controversies. There are other places to voice displeasure about these matters. A nominee, who comes before this body, seeking only to serve his country, deserves far better. Dr. Foster has strong bipartisan support both inside the Senate as well as around the country. I look forward to seeing him make a positive contribution to the Nation's public health.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I wish to make a few remarks about the highway bill that we are considering today. The highway bill is so very critical for my State of Wyoming. We need to complete action on this legislation prior to October 1st of this year 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 lost Amtrack 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 a so put off by a national speed limit. I am so pleased to see that the committee bill 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, I rise to express my support for the Livestock Grazing Act introduced by my colleague and good friend, Senator Domenici. He and his staff--especially Marron Lee--have done an outstanding job leading the charge for responsible grazing fee reform. I commend them for working so doggedly to produce the best bill possible. Mr. President, I say ``best bill possible'' because there cannot be a perfect bill. With the number of diverse interests represented throughout our great American West, no legislation in this area will satisfy everyone. But truly, the widespread support for this bill has been impressive. Of course, I have heard some rumblings of discontent from those wishing to modify specific portions of this legislation. I ask those individuals to work with us, to let us know your thoughts as this bill moves through the committee process. We will do our best to attend to your concerns. There are, however, certain things we must all bear in mind. First, this bill is by far better than the alternative of having no bill, and second, we must not turn this bill into a ``Christmas wish list.'' Doing so could spell defeat for this legislation and, in turn, subject our western livestock industry to an uncertain future. I am most pleased by a number of provisions contained in this legislation that will benefit the Wyoming ranching industry. I would like to quickly address a few of these. First, the bill will allow ranchers to own, in proportion to their investment in the overall cost, title to improvements located on Federal lands. This is far more fair than the administration's regulations requiring ranchers to pay for the improvement, while cedingownership with the Government. Mr. President, that alternative is wrongly conceived. It amounts simply to a form of tax on our ranchers, taking their scarce assets and transferring them to the Federal Government. We also address the critical issue of water rights. The Western States are not blessed with the almost unlimited supply of water that our Eastern neighbors enjoy. Western water law was created to manage this precious resource. Much of this law predates the birth of many of our Western States and works very well without the help of the Federal Government, thank you. This legislation directs Federal agencies to respect established State water law. This legislation, unlike the administration's regulations, will leave certain aspects of rangeland management in the hands of those who have been responsible stewards of the public lands for over 100 years--the permittees, lessees, and landowners. Additionally, the new resource and grazing advisory council structure will allow other interests representing recreation and the environment to be adequately represented in the management process. Finally, this legislation addresses the ever-contentious fee issue. Recall that not too long ago, many in this distinguished body were concerned that the ranching community was not paying a fair price for the opportunity to graze livestock on the public lands. This legislation will fairly increase that fee but keep it short of levels that would quickly bankrupt many hard-working families. Mr. President, our American ranching industry has been a unique way of life for well over 100 years. Through the enactment of responsible legislation we can ensure that this industry, while still facing a number of significant challenges, will at least have a chance to remain viable well into the next century.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island. At the end of this very first day of debate on the budget resolution, I come to the floor to offer a few observations. I do not think any one of us on either side of the aisle exaggerate when we say that we have the deepest respect for Senator Pete Domenici. I have heard my good friends on the other side say just that. We have a great mutual respect for him. I go on to say that the budget resolution crafted by my respected friend could well turn out, in my mind, to be one of the most historic and important and statesmanlike measures voted on during my 16-year tenure here in the U.S. Senate. The chairman of the Budget Committee is one remarkable legislator. We here have long known him for his expertise, his integrity, and his dedication to lessening the burden on posterity--our children and grandchildren. So it is a pleasure to see so many here and out in the land giving a long overdue to this man and his work, and he is one of the most hard-working men I have ever met in my time in this place. So the measure he presents to us would bring the annual deficit of the United States down to zero by the year 2002. People say, why 2002? I answer, because we may never, ever have another chance to do this. In the future, we could see a war, God spare us, or a recession, and then the retirement of the baby boom generation. That is where the hit comes, the identifiable hit. If we cannot balance the books during this fleeting window of opportunity, I feel very deeply that it will never be done again. We would simply be consigning our children--``kids'' is the phrase used here all day, those kids everybody is always talking about on the other side and our side all day long, the kids--the kids will receive nothing. We will not have to worry about cuts. There will not be anything. We will be consigning those kids to mounting deficits, crushing interest rates, and payments of fiscatory tax rates, payroll taxes. You talk about balancing something on the backs of someone, their backs will break from the tax load that comes if we cannot get this done. Earlier this year, we voted on a balanced budget amendment, a very exciting debate, vigorous, spirited. Over and over in this Chamber, I heard the opponents of that amendment say, some in high-pitched endeavor, that we did not need an amendment to the Constitution of the United States; all we need is some political courage, some guts to do the job. Oh, magnificent speeches, they ring in my head. And guess what? Now it is time to do the job, and now we shall see who has the political courage. Oh, indeed, we shall. I cannot wait for the debate. I am very proud that the majority party in this body is coming forward and proposing a solution to this growing crisis. If you want a good definition of business as usual in Washington, DC, I would say it was the practice of assuming that the public will punish us if we did what was right and then pulling our punches accordingly. The strategy on the other side seems to be to assume that business as usual will still prevail, to sit on the sidelines, chuckle, do high- fives, and criticize and whoop it up and hope, and, more problem will be punished by a furious and angry electorate. That is a depressing and cynical view of the American citizenry, I believe, and I, for one, do not ascribe to it. We Republicans are, indeed, making a historic gamble. We are betting that if we do what is right, unheard of in itself in this city, if we, indeed, move toward a balanced budget, that the shrieking, and wailing and howling of the various special interests will be drowned out by the chorus of praise-- yes, praise--from the vast majority of at least thoughtful Americans who are sick and tired of seeing the burdens of debt pile higher and higher and higher on them and on their children. And who did it? We did it; we in Congress did it. Do not blame it on Ronald Reagan. Do not blame it on George Bush. Do not blame it on Jimmy Carter. Do not blame it on Bill Clinton. Blame it on us. We have performed superbly for the last 50 years. We have acted like pack horses in dragging the money back to our districts and preening our feathers to tell our constituents: ``What did you want? We heard you and we went and got it for you, even though now it is 5 trillion bucks worth of debt.'' Columnist George Will, a very bright and articulate man, made a rather telling observation, I think it was Sunday before last, on a national television performance. He noted there seems to be a key in the word processors in the Democratic offices on the Hill that automatically types: ``We will not balance the budget on the backs of,'' and then you just leave the blank. ``We will not balance the budget on the backs of,'' and then you fill in the blank: Senior citizens, the children, veterans, farmers, teachers, welfare recipients, ``Masterpiece Theater.'' You name it, if it is affected by serious deficit reduction, and every form of spending must be, then the Democratic Party will oppose it. Guess what, folks; that is exactly why we have $5 trillion in debt. I am one who is going to balance the budget to get the debt off the backs of the children and the grandchildren. Curious adventure. I think that is what we should do when we are talking about what is on or off the backs. The debt will crush them. Washington must really be the last place in the world where it is realized if you want to get out of debt, you simply can keep spending more and more and more. Washington is also the only town in the world where you cut spending and it gets bigger. I come from Wyoming. We must simply use a different language out there. We call it English. In that language, a reduction means something gets smaller, not bigger. So anyone who is watching this debate needs to remember that when we are attacked for savage cuts, we are indeed talking about increases in spending only. Only increases, however, that are not as big and as demanding of your hard-earned money as those or some of those in the other party would like. Earlier today, I saw a chart brought out by the Senator from Massachusetts, my old friend, Senator Ted Kennedy. He and I do a little facing off every day. We do not get paid for that. It is purely a nonprofit activity. We do not agree on all things, but I enjoy him very much. He brought out a chart--a powerful chart--that said ``working families pay for tax cuts for the wealthy''--a sinister preparation. Very interesting, and especially so, since there are no tax cuts in this budget resolution submitted by our colleague. There is not a tax cut in a car load, nowhere. The President, however, still wants $63 billion in tax cuts, and we do not hear too much about that. So all that we have done is said that if we succeed in balancing the budget, and if this produces a dividend perhaps in the form of declining interest rates, then that money should go to the taxpayers and not for us to spend. Now, I have personally come out very strongly to say ``no tax cuts'' until the budget is balanced. But I find it extremely odd that Democratic detractors believe that tax cuts are irresponsible even if the budget remains balanced. That is the most curious view of budgetary responsibility that I know. But it is historically so with some of them. But here are the facts about the budget before us. With this budget, we achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002. In which category in this budget does spending grow the fastest? In Medicare. In the budget Senator Domenici is presenting to this Senate, the largest growing item of spending in this budget is Medicare; 7.1 percent per year, going from $178 to $283 billion. No other program in the entire budget is dealt with more generously than Medicare. It is astonishing that even this huge rate of growth is greeted as ``not enough'' by the detractors. This is a measure of how serious and debilitating the addiction to spending has become. Under this budget, we are the toughest on the appropriated spending matters. Shrinking it not just relative to inflation, but shrinking it outright--$548 billion in 1995 and $518 billion by 2002. This is the kind of budget discipline that America seems to have been crying for. On the other hand, huge increases could still occur and will still occur in Social Security--$334 billion in Social Security going to $480 billion; and in Medicare, $178 to $283 billion. And in Medicaid, from $89 to $125 billion, and all other mandatory spending which includes Federal retirement, welfare, agricultural subsidies, and all the rest grows, continually grows from $146 to $197 billion. And remember, we all took Social Security off the table. I did not. The Senator who is standing across in the Chamber did not either. The two of us have presented to the American public seven bills to bring solvency to the Social Security system, and we will present that and we will have hearings on that, and we will proceed with that. It is very difficult to do what we really have to do, and it would be so much simpler. Yet, we did it out of political terrorism, that we not touch the item of the budget which is $383 billion a year revenue. I am going to leave the details of that. I do not know what my colleague from Nebraska is going to say. But I can tell you this: Senator Bob Kerrey is a very courageous person, and he has faced up to these problems before by being chairman of the Entitlements Commission, the bipartisan Entitlements Commission. That is why it is a great privilege and an honor for me to join him in a bipartisan approach to bring some eventual sanity to a system which goes into terminal decline in the year 2013 and then goes bankrupt in the year 2031, and that is the Social Security system. I do not want my remarks on that tied with this budget resolution or any part of it. Sever that. But I, as a Member of the Senate, will be proceeding to do something about that system. So we cannot do better than to repeat this over and over and over again. The rapid detractors succeed in portraying these as cuts. If the American public really swallows that, maybe the detractors are right. Maybe then the public deserves exactly what it gets--permanent deficits and poverty for our descendants, all out of political terrorism, or, as my old friend Gary Hart used to say, ``mow-mow politics.'' I join Senator Domenici and the distinguished majority leader, Bob Dole, in thinking better of the American public. I believe that though the special interests will cry out, the keening wail will sound like wolves in the Yellowstone with a full Moon--the keening wail of the special interests. But I think the vast majority of Americans want this job done and now--or at least for us to start. They want everyone who is benefiting from Federal largess to take a hit. It will not be easy, and there will undoubtedly be sacrifices that will be called for from every sector of society. I also believe they have grown tired of Washington telling them that no sacrifices are necessary. We do not have to touch senior citizens or the children or anyone else to get this job done. When you take that approach, spending never slows. Always up. (Mrs. HUTCHISON assumed the chair.)

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee.

Mr. SIMPSON. It is incredible to me that our President and some on the other side of the aisle have chosen to ignore all responsibility in this challenge. AWOL--absent without leadership. I certainly do not intend to include some others on the other side of the aisle. As I have mentioned, Senator Kerrey has faced these problems alone and in an election year before. That takes real guts. But it astounds me, and I am sure my colleague, that given work of this commission and from the trustees of Social Security telling us about these things and the future of Federal spending, that the President would submit a budget that makes not even the slightest attempt to approach or deal with the problem, or to accept one word of the recommendations of the commission that he appointed, and then drop all reference to generational struggles that are coming in this country in the years very soon ahead. Earlier this week, the President announced plans to veto a rescissions package of $16 billion. That is less than 1 percent of the budget, and it was too much for the President to end. How in the world are we going to make the tough decisions on entitlements and other sensitive spending if we cannot even cut 1 percent of the budget? That rescissions package contained various unauthorized appropriations, various GSA construction projects--true pork--and we all played that one. Certainly, there must have been spending in there the President favored, but I find it impossible to believe that this spending is so important that he would delete even the headway we would make on 1 percent of the budget. It is a terribly strange way to take a stand, to defend every last bit, even that last 1 percent of pork-ridden discretionary spending. And we were all in that one. But that is not my idea of leadership. There are many examples of what have been presented and what will happen. Let me tell you one exaggerated one, and I am going to wind up. Others are here, too. I was thinking how someone maybe in this administration might have conducted themselves in a cabinet meeting or something at various previous periods in our history-- perhaps if in office at the time of the secession of the Southern States in 1861, can almost hear advisors turning to the President and saying, ``Now, Americans might get upset if we ask for sacrifices, so better let the Congress institute a military draft and then we will criticize them for it because that would be better politically.'' That is obviously a little exaggerated example, to be sure, but I think some appropriateness there. This is a historic tune for this President to be the President who led the Nation out of debt and on the path of responsibility and solvency, again. He has a Congress also, even eager to do the job, but the best he can do is to hope that there will be a political cost, a deep political cost associated with the effort. Let me say to the detractors, there is still the opportunity to contribute to this effort and to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. I have heard criticism from some Democrats that this budget does not really balance the budget by 2002 because it only balances the unified budget, the one that includes Social Security. Very well, then. Democrats wish to offer an alternative budget, balances the budget without counting Social Security, I would consider giving my support to that. While we have yet to see such a budget presented, criticism from the other side is about several million cubic feet of hot air. We Republicans took a lot of guff last session because we did not vote for the President's budget. Of course, events since then have vindicated Republicans because the President's own budget forecast $200 billion deficits as far as the eye can see. Clearly, that budget did not do the job, just as we said it would not. At least at the time we proposed our own alternative budget to do the same job, that alternative reflected our differences with the President. We would have done it via spending cuts instead of tax increases but we did present an alternative. Those of the other faith appear to have forgotten that. They have no alternative to offer that does the job as thoroughly as our own budget. The President's budget does not even try. It just allows deficits to climb and the debt to pile up ad infinitum. I do not believe that that is good politics for the minority party. But do not take that advice from me. Undoubtedly, there will be political opposition to the measures we have to take to balance the budget, but once we do, I think Americans will see, once we do it they will see that the benefits will be coming to them. Declining interest rates, they will see the benefits of restored confidence in the market, in the investment in our economy, in the dollar itself. They will come to congratulate Members for the work we have done. Perhaps even more importantly, we will then have a fighting chance to deal with the retirement of the baby boom generation when it does begin. There is absolutely no way we will be ready for that if we are still running the deficits in the hundreds of billions that those on the other side seem to advocate. So we have a moral obligation to pass a form of this balanced budget this week. Future generations will not look kindly on Members if they fail. We should reach together on reaching a consensus on the best form of a balanced budget resolution. I pledge to do that. I know my colleague from Illinois is here on the floor. I am yielding the floor in just a moment, but will say that I thoroughly enjoyed working with her, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, on the Entitlements Commission. It was a great eye opener for all Members. I wish, in many ways, I had not been on it because it reminded me of that old movie, ``The Man Who Knew Too Much,'' because we learned too much. We learned where we are headed. Had a lot of good people from both sides of the aisle helping. If we can get through this necessary political posturing, which I am doing a good bit of myself, and we all have to do this. This is very therapeutic. Then we will settle down and get something, because we all know what the stakes are, and we all know what the numbers are. That has never happened before. It has happened because the Entitlements Commission and the great work of Senator Kerrey and Senator Danforth. It has happened because the Social Security trustees have said exactly what is going to happen to the systems of Medicare, which will go broke. That is not something that floated in from the west coast. That is the Social Security trustees saying it. The Social Security trustees are Donna Shalala, Robert Rubin, Robert Reich, the Commissioner, and Democrat and Republican citizens of America saying it will go broke. In the year 2016, the disability insurance fund will go broke. In 2031, the Social Security system will go broke. That doomsday date used to be 2063. It is now 2031. It moves up 3 to 5 years every year. There it is. Fun and games all we want. I am ready to play it. I love it. So does the senior Senator from Nebraska who came here with me, and in who there is no more spirited and engaging men than Senator Jim Exon, and the Senator in the chair, and the Senator from New Hampshire. We will do this, and then we should sit down after the shot and the shell and the smoke, because there is no smoke and mirrors in this budget. Everyone who has been here as long as I, 16 years, 10 years, 15 years, now know, no smoke, no mirrors. All hard tough votes. I cannot wait for the debate. We never needed a balanced budget amendment. Just need to cast those tough votes. Well, hop in and get wet all over.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I join my able and steady colleague Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska in introducing a series of proposals we have crafted in an effort to address the long-term problems of Social Security. I emphasize that our goal is to ``save'' this program--not, as some of the senior citizen and other groups will claim, to ``savage'' it. We are well aware that it is politically hazardous to even breathe a word about reforming Social Security. But we also believe the people of this country will be receptive to what we have to say. They know that they, or their loved ones, will most surely suffer over the long haul if we continue to cling blindly to the ``status quo.'' I believe they will embrace ``change'' when they are presented with the honest facts and the harsh reality of what the future holds for them if we continue on our present course. Before I outline the details of our bills, let me briefly review why we feel compelled to address this issue. 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 [[Page S6914]] 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 he 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. 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. 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 included in the bills we introduce today. On April 3 of this year, another clanging ``wake-up call'' rang from the Social Security and Medicare board of trustees. The trustees informed Congress and the American people in their annual report that-- according to their best projections--the Social Security retirement trust fund will be exhausted in 2031, the disability trust fund will run out in 2016, and the Medicare trust fund will be depleted, that is, broke, in 2002. These dates will be upon us sooner than one can imagine. The ``doomsday'' date for Medicare is only 7 short years away. The situation with Social Security may seem less urgent, but we must not be lured into complacency. Although the ``doomsday'' dates are currently set at 2031 and 2016 for the retirement and disability programs, the trustees' report also indicates that combined expenditures for the two programs will begin to exceed revenues in the year 2013. From 2013 to 2019, it will be necessary to ``dip into'' the interest income that is earned on the principal in order to pay out benefits. And then, beginning in the year 2020, we will have to ``dip into'' the principal itself just to keep the benefits flowing. Because this is such a crucial point that every American must realize, I will repeat it again--to continue paying Social Security benefits, we will have to dip into--that is, spend--the trust fund's principal and interest beginning in 2013. We will be running a negative cash flow beginning in 2013. What this means is that come 2013, the Government will have several options: borrow money from the Treasury and drive up the deficit; raise payroll taxes on current workers; or reduce benefits to retirees. These figures are not based on hysteria or fiction. They are cold, hard, clear, painful facts. No one can refute them--but we can take action to change our course and prevent these forecasts from coming true. That is why Senator Kerrey and I are here today. We are introducing seven separate bills that taken together will shore up Social Security. We are also introducing a package of bills, some of which duplicate the separate bills. This package will also solve Social Security's long-term solvency crisis. We've shored up Social Security in two ways to show our colleagues that there are a variety of ways to do it. Our first bill deals with the Social Security retirement age. Many Americans may not know this, but current law already provides that the normal retirement age--the age at which full benefits can be received-- will begin to slowly increase in the year 2000 for people who were born after 1937, and it will continue to gradually increase until it reaches age 67 for those who were born after 1959. This law is already ``on the books.'' Senator Kerrey and I are proposing that the increases which are already scheduled be gradually accelerated. Our bill proposes that the normal retirement age begin to increase, beginning in the year 2000, so it reaches 66 in the year 2005, 67 in the year 2011, 68 in the year 2017, 69 in the year 2023, and 70 in the year 2029. We also gradually increase the early retirement age to 65 by 2017 beginning in the year 2000. The early retirement age would reach 63 in the year 2005, 64 in the year 2011 and 65 in the year 2017. I want to emphasize that the first group of people subject to the retirement age of 70 are those who are presently in their early 30's. Current retirees are not affected at all by this proposal. Thus, no one can let out a howl that we are calling for sweeping changes ``at the last minute,'' without giving people a chance to adjust their retirement plans. That is not what we are up to. I also think it is useful to review the extent to which life expectancies have increased in the last 50 years. In 1940, the average life expectancy in the United States was 61.4 years for a male and 65.7 years for a female, yet the retirement age was 65. Today, the average life expectancy is about 72 years for men and 79 years for women. According to the Social Security Administration, more than 75 percent of the people who were born 65 years ago are still alive today. These individuals, once they have reached the age of 65, can expect to live another 15 years if they are men and another 19 years if they are women. The authors of the original Social Security Act of 1935 had no way of knowing ``back then'' that today's retirees would be living for so long. Had they known then what we know now, I believe they would have agreed that a higher retirement age would be appropriate in the 21st century. Our second bill would allow taxpayers to reduce their Social Security payroll tax payments by 2 percentage points and direct this money into a personal investment plan [PIP] of their own choice. Workers who choose this option would have their future benefits reduced by a corresponding amount, but this reduction would be offset with earnings from their personal investment plan. The question of whether lost benefits would be partially, completely or more than offset by these earnings would depend upon the decisions each individual makes with respect to his or her private investment plan. I often hear from constituents who insist that if they were allowed to invest their Social Security taxes themselves, they could earn a much higher rate of return than the 8 percent return U.S. Treasury securities yielded last year. This bill gives them a chance to do just that. Some taxpayers will prove that, indeed, they can do better investing these funds on their own. Others may learn the hard way that private sector investments always carry a certain element of risk. Either way, I believe it is important to give people more control over decisions relating to their retirement. Our third bill is guaranteed to bring howls of glee from the hinterlands. It calls for reductions in the pensions of Members of Congress and certain Federal employees. These reductions are achieved through three separate provisions. First, the accrual rates used to calculate pensions would be reduced by one-tenth of 1 percent for future years of service. This means that the pension of a typical Federal employee--whose accrual rate would go from 1.0 to 0.9--would be reduced by up to 10 percent. Second, the accrual rates used to calculate congressional pensions would be made equal to those used to calculate the pensions of typical Federal employees. Thus, a Member of Congress would have his or her pension calculated on the basis of a 0.9-percent accrual rate for future years of congressional service instead of a 1.7-percent accrual rate, thereby reducing his or her pension by as much as 47 percent. Third, our bill would require that the pensions of certain Federal employees, including Members of Congress, be based on their five highest salary years--instead of their three highest salary years. These provisions demonstrate in the most vivid manner possible that we, as elected officials, are willing to make sacrifices ourselves. This is something we must do to show the American people that we are serious about getting our fiscal house in order. We all understand that reducing our own pensions won't make a dent in the deficit, but our success in other areas. Our fourth bill deals with the retirement benefits that are received by individuals who joined the military after July 31, 1986 and therefore aren't able to retire until the middle of 2006. We propose that the accrual rates used to calculate their pensions on be limited to 2 percent per year, regardless of how many years of service an individual may have. Currently, the accrual rate is 2 percent for each of the first 20 years and 3.5 percent for the 21st through 30th years of military service. This is an extraordinarily generous system by any standard. I am fully prepared for the cries of outrage this will bring from some of the many men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the military. I served in the military too, as did Bob Kerrey who won the Medal of Honor for his bravery. We would never do anything to diminish the importance or value of their service. But it is hard to justify an accrual rate of 3.5 percent for military retirees when civil service Federal employees have an accrual rate of 1.0 percent and we are talking about bringing that down to 0.9 percent. I believe the changes Senator Kerrey and I propose are appropriate in the context of what we are doing with congressional and civil service pensions. Our fifth bill would change the manner in which cost of living adjustments [COLA's] are awarded. We propose that limits be placed on the COLA's of all Social Security beneficiaries and Federal and military retirees--except the 30 percent who receive the smallest COLA in each program. Under this approach, the ``poorest'' 30 percent of recipients would continue to receive their full COLA's. The other 70 percent would also receive a COLA each year, but they would receive a COLA that is equivalent only to the actual dollar amount of the COLA that is received by recipients who are down there at the 30-percent level. One important point I want to emphasize with respect to Social Security is that--since COLA's did not begin until the early 1970's and thus were not even included in the original Social Security Act of 1935--this proposal would not in any way ``break'' or alter the ``contract'' that is considered to exist between senior citizens and Social Security. It is also important to note that this approach does not discourage people from saving for their retirement. It does not in any way penalize seniors who have personal savings or other sources of income. The amount of one's benefit is the sole determinant of whether or not a retiree is subject to the COLA cap. There are no other factors involved. Our sixth bill focuses on the Consumer Price Index [CPI], which is used to calculate cost-of-living adjustments [COLA's] for Social Security beneficiaries and for military and Federal retirees. Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and other very credible witnesses have testified before the Senate Finance Committee that the CPI, as currently calculated, ``overstates'' actual inflation by as much as one or two percentage points. This may seem like an almost benign or inconsequential fact, but when you consider that hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal payments are increased each year on the basis of the CPI alone--and, furthermore, that the Federal income tax brackets are also adjusted annually according to the CPI--it becomes very clear that this is not a small matter. Senator Kerrey and I are proposing today that the annual CPI calculation be automatically reduced by one-half of a percentage point. According to the experts who testified before the Senate Finance Committee, this is a conservative estimate of how much the CPI is overstated. We also call for the creation of a seven-member commission that would be charged with studying the accuracy of the CPI and reporting its findings to the Secretary of Labor and Congress within 1 year. It is our sincere desire that this process would eventually lead to a more accurate measure of inflation, thus eliminating the need for an automatic reduction each year. The seventh and final bill which Senator Kerrey and I introduce today is one that all 100 senators should be able to agree on. We propose that the Congressional Budget Office and the OMB be required to use a 30-year ``budget window'' instead of a five-year ``budget window'' in evaluating any legislation that affects entitlement spending. This is a matter of common sense. By definition, entitlement programs go on forever unless Congress takes specific action to stop them. To say that we will look only at the first 5 years of such programs is now unacceptable. It is absolutely essential that we begin to view these programs from a longer-term perspective. These seven bills represent the best efforts of my friend Senator Kerrey and myself to protect and preserve these retirement programs for many generations to come. We invite our colleagues to join us in supporting and advancing these measures--or to come up with various alternatives of your own. 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--it will pale in comparison to the truly richly deserved scorn we will receive from future generations if we fail to have the courage to act. I eagerly look forward to a spirited debate on these issues and I urge my colleagues to join the fray.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. We are once again trying to pass legislation dealing with the export of solid waste from one State to another. This issue has become a concern because some of the large Northeastern States have been shipping large amounts of garbage to States such as Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Virginia for disposal. This waste is being exported in part because the cost of disposing of this waste in another State, even after figuring in shipping costs, is less than the cost of disposal in the home State. We find that high population States such as New Jersey and New York have been running short of landfill capacity. That has been caused by a shortage of usable land and more importantly because State and local governments have not been building new landfill capacity or new incinerators. Local citizens in these area have opposed such efforts. This is a classic example of the ``not in my back yard'' or ``NIMBY'' principle. The citizens in States generating the waste oppose the construction of new incinerators. With proper environmental controls incinerators may be one of the best methods of disposal. Heat energy can be recovered from burning trash and we do not end up with the huge volume that must be buried in a landfill. Without local disposal options the next option becomes shipping trash somewhere else and disposing of it in a neighbors back yard. Now the folks who have been receiving trash from out of State are finding their landfill capacity being used up by citizens who live hundreds of miles away. They are saying ``not in my backyard either'' and I can understand their frustration. The people of Wyoming do not want trash being brought in from other States in large quantities because others will not make the tough political decisions needed to expand landfill capacity or to build incinerators. Wyoming is the largest coal producing State in the Nation. We have large open pit coal mines. We had a proposal floating around in my State at one time to bring empty coal train cars back into the State loaded with garbage to be dumped in the old open pit mines. Someone thought that was a marvelous idea. The people of Wyoming did not think it was a marvelous idea though. There was a hue and cry across the land when that trial balloon was floated. The opposition to this proposal was vocal and near unanimous. So I am pleased that we are granting Governors authority to limit the importation of waste from out of State. I understand the issue with the commerce clause. But we do need to ensure send their problems down the road to someone else. This is not about interstate commerce--this is about States and counties failing to face up to their own problems and responsibilities. We see some of the same issue when dealing with low level nuclear waste. We have set up a system of compacts where States join together and make group decisions about where to locate low level waste disposal sites. Every State generates low level waste and it must be disposed of in a thoughtful manner. But the State compact system does not work well for interstate trash because there are just a few States with huge volumes of waste and no place to put it. So we are letting individual States limit or accept out of State waste as they see fit. I trust that this legislation will ensure that the exporting States will take a more constructive approach to this problem in the future. Citizens of every State must recognize that as consumers they are responsible for the waste they generate and they must bite the bullet and deal with it locally. I trust we can get this bill through conference and to the President in a timely fashion. We came very close last year to getting it done but the bill died the last day of the session. Senator Chafee and Senator Smith have done yeoman work on this bill and I commend them for their efforts and I look forward to the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, are we in a period of morning business at this point?

Mr. SIMPSON. I will be very short. I understand that you are ready to adjourn for the evening. (The remarks of Mr. Simpson pertaining to the introduction of S. 805 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will improve the Nation's Rural Electric Program by putting some common sense back into the way we use taxpayers' money to fund rural electric and rural development loans. The Rural Electrification and Rural Economic Development Improvement Act of 1995 would amend a law that clearly has not evolved in step with the industry. The fact is, the growth of our Nation's population has greatly changed--and continues to change--the nature of electric service areas. People are moving into previously underpopulated areas and our current statutes do not address that growth. There was once a widespread need for Government incentives in order to provide ``affordable'' electric service to consumers in many areas, but that need too, has changed. Many areas of our country which are no longer rural are still being served by Government-subsidized utilities, even though commercial utilities are willing to provide the service. The result is a current policy which puts the U.S. Government right into the fray. We end up with a policy that subsidizes one competitor over another and we charge the bill to the taxpayers. That terrible market distortion is the product of an outdated rural electric policy that must be changed. Since I arrived in the Senate in 1978, I have watched the current REA system transfer billions of dollars in interest subsidies from taxpayers to rural electric borrowers. Today, many of those borrowers are perfectly capable of competing in the open-market without Government subsidies. Certainly not all of the borrowers can compete. There are, indeed, many troubled cooperatives that need assistance. That is why the objective of this bill is to pare down the bloated system so that we can continue to fund hardship loans. Nobody wants to pass legislation that will push electric rates through the roof. I certainly do not, and that will not happen with this bill. My aim is to get the healthy borrowers ``off the dole'' so we can focus scarce funds on the hardship cases. That should be very clear from the beginning. I do not propose eliminating the Rural Utilities Service [RUS] or the subsidized loan program. But we should target assistance to the co-ops that really are incapable of providing affordable electric service in an open market. And we should offer healthy borrowers a nonpunitive road to the free market. Indeed, that is something many of them need. There are a great number of co-ops out there--both distributors and power suppliers--that are locked in to high cost Government loans. On top of that, many of those distributors are stuck with expensive power supply contracts. The co-ops cannot shop around because they are loaded down with Government-financed debt they cannot afford to privatize. So they must continue on--unable to openly compete--forced to purchase more expensive power and to offset it with Government interest subsidies, while their neighbors, the profit-driven corporations, become more efficient and more competitive. I trust my colleagues will agree that we should make every effort to get the ``biggest bang for our buck.'' That has been one of the catch phrases of this Congress. And it applies to every Government program, not just the Rural Utilities Service. This week, members of the Budget Committee are confronting the difficult choices essential to balancing the budget by 2002. This means they must identify over $30 billion in cuts each year, for 7 years, more than 10 times the painful cuts we just passed in the rescissions bill. Everyone had best be prepared to take their lumps as we debate reductions in agricultural research, the arts, education, transportation and a host of other important areas--this electric program should not be exempted. The overall size of the program is staggering. Current outstanding loans exceed $20 billion for distribution cooperatives--they call them ``discos''--they danced through $20 billion and over $40 billion for power supply co-ops--the generation and transmission facilities, or G&T's. This is a behemoth of a Government business. The legislation I am introducing would save taxpayers millions of dollars on interest subsidies alone without repealing the program. As I say often; borrowers that really need loans should like this bill. Under current law, some of them must wait years to get loans because available funds are allocated on a ``first-come, first-served'' basis and there is not enough to go around. According to the latest rural electric survey there is a $405 million loan backlog this year. That will increase to more than $500 million next year and we still do not allow the RUS to prioritize the money, if you are in the back of the line, you just have to wait. And please hear this. The system is clogged because any entity that has ever received an REA-approved loan remains eligible for rural electric loans--forever. Hear that. It is a deal. It is ``once a borrower always a borrower'' and there is no end in sight. Even if a co-op is fully able to obtain market-rate credit elsewhere, it can keep coming right back to suckle at the teat of the Federal treasury's low- interest loan program again and again, even sometimes when they have not paid up on the previous one. That is not appropriate and it is not fair and it is not just. My bill would subject RUS borrowers to the very same ``credit elsewhere'' test that all other agricultural borrowers must face. For example, under current law, the Farmer's Home Administration can only give a loan to a farmer who is unable to obtain ``reasonable credit elsewhere.'' Farmer's Home is ``the lender of last resort.'' But RUS is instead a ``lender of first resort.'' If Congress is serious about privatizing unnecessary Government lending, then we must put a realistic means-test on RUS loans. Some of the co-ops will tell you they already have a means-test, but let me tell you what that is. In 1992, we limited cheap Government financing for the really wealthy co-ops to 70 percent of their total debt-load. That is not a means-test. There is a big difference between 70 percent and a ``credit elsewhere'' test. I believe we should retain the current three-tiered financing system that includes hardship loans, direct loans and guaranteed loans. I believe that applicants should only receive such assistance when they cannot get ``credit elsewhere.'' Then, they can come to the Government either for low-interest hardship loans, ``at-cost'' direct loans or a Government guarantee of up to 90 percent. Under my legislation, the RUS would review the borrower's books every 2 [[Page S6692]] years. If a borrower's circumstances have improved they would then be allowed to prepay their Government loans, without penalty, in order to move into the commercial credit market. The budget savings in the legislation would come from a reduction in interest subsidies and administrative costs. In fiscal year 1995, the 5 percent hardship loan subsidy cost the taxpayers $10 million, but ``municipal rate'' direct loans cost over $46 million. On top of that, we spent $30 million on administration. Those interest subsidies provided $74 million in hardship loans and $536 million in direct loans from the revolving fund. My proposal would save over $60 million by using the treasury interest rate for non-hardship direct loans. With direct loans at treasury rate interest, we would save over $60 million next year. Some of that money would go to increasing the appropriation for hardship loans to $25 million, which should more than double the availability of truly necessary loans. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association--the NRECA--will surely mobilize to fight this bill. Oh, you bet they will. Its representatives will come to the hill saying that this legislation is going to destroy their industry, it will be a tragic portrait right straight out of ``The Grapes of Wrath.'' But I say that this bill will not cause rural America to wither up and die. Those images are an absolute fiction. The reality is that the REA has accomplished its mission in many areas of our country. Proof of that lies in the simple fact that competition exists for electric service in many co-op territories. I would ask again, why should the Government continue to subsidize electric loans when private industry is ready and willing to provide reasonable service? The NRECA will also say that their competitors are trying to gobble up their choice customers. I have heard that one. To that, I would suggest that healthy co-ops should take advantage of this bill and privatize their debt. Investors are out there who want to put money into the co-ops because many of them have rapidly growing residential service areas that are a great investment. Those co-ops should be going head-to-head with their competitors on an even playing field. On the issue of annexation and territorial predation, I believe the leading role should be played by the State public service commissions. When there are difficult--perhaps even ancestral--disputes over territorial rights, State regulatory commissions are far better suited to make appropriate determinations than is the Federal Government. Local decisions should be made at the local level. The NRECA will also point a finger at tax incentives that are enjoyed by their profit-driven competitors. They will call that an unfair advantage. But these electric co-ops do not pay any Federal income taxes. They claim they do, indirectly, and that is true. When a cooperative distributes dividends to its members, the members must pay tax on that income. But any ``Joe Citizen'' who owns stock in a power company must also pay income tax on the dividends. The argument that investor-owned utilities have an unfair tax advantage is senseless. If the co-ops really want the same tax incentives, then we would have to start taxing them. I do not think they want that. Another very important part of the bill would improve the delivery of rural development funds, specifically low-interest ``water and waste disposal'' loans. We want to ensure that priority here is being given to nonprofit organizations whose projects are included in a local, regional, or statewide development plan. This would assist in the coordination of rural development efforts and it is consistent with the desire to eliminate duplicative spending. Another item that needs correction is a provision that--since 1987-- has allowed electric borrowers to invest up to 15 percent of their total plant value in rural development projects without RUS approval-- and without regard to their Federal debt status. The problem with this is that a co-op which is receiving interest subsidies on its Federal debt could actually invest any excess capital--up to 15 percent of its plant value--in ``rural development projects.'' In theory, the taxpayers subsidize the RUS loans so that borrowers can plug low-interest funds into rural development. But a 1992 USDA inspector general's report uncovered a different picture. Of the more than $8 billion that had been invested by electric borrowers, less than 1 percent actually went to rural development investments. The inspector general found a disturbing trend in which borrowers took their Government interest subsidies right to ``market-rate Wall Street'' and invested hundreds of millions of dollars not in rural development, but in mutual funds. My bill would reduce that limitation to 3 percent. I believe excess capital should be used to pay off taxpayer-subsidized debt before it is used to enrich the cooperatives. Mr. President, I come from a State that has been magnificently served by the REA over the years. One of the first national directors of REA was one J.C. ``Kid'' Nichols, a Wyoming businessman who was a dear and lifelong friend of mine. He was there when the agency first embarked upon its mission in this country, a mission to bring electricity and lights to rural America. It was a stunning thing to see. But if we are to better the lot of rural Americans--and we all know that rural America can use some real help--we need to be honest about how far we have come to where we are and how we can change where we are going. And change we must--with responsibility and with courage. The task we face is great because we have to deal with a massive national debt, an ever-dwindling Federal trough, and the wants of voracious voters. The rural electric program is a microcosm of everything that is right--and wrong--with our country. On the one hand, the REA wired our homes for sound and light. It surely did that for the folks near my hometown of Cody, WY. And it changed the lives of rural people forever. On the other hand, we have allowed the program to grow so big and so far-reaching that we have lost sight of why it was created in the first place: it was to give rural Americans what the rest of the country had--electric power. Mr. President, that mission has been accomplished and the country has changed. Why does this program plod along--year after year--untouched by all sensibility and reason? I have often said you show me where we need power lines in rural America today, and I will be right here to appropriate and assist in getting the money to do that in every way, discussing density, discussing all the geographical aspects, all the rest. But I have been watching this issue like a hawk for a lot of years. I am pleased to offer this bill. I believe that it will save the integrity of the program. I will say it again. Congress must take its deficit cutting task seriously, and this legislation would be an important part of that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friends, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Senator Jon Kyl, in introducing a bill to permit private and community foundations to pool investment assets into a ``common fund'' or cooperative organization. This legislation was twice passed by the Senate in 1992 as part of the comprehensive tax legislation ultimately vetoed by the President. This bill would extend to foundations the same ``common fund'' model which has proven so successful for colleges and universities. The university common fund now manages over $10 billion--with more than 900 educational institutions participating. Once established, a common fund for foundations would allow smaller foundations to increase their total return on investment and significantly reduce investment management fees by taking advantage of economies of scale. Both results have the same bottom line: Increased assets and income will then be available for private and community foundation grants to charitable groups. Studies disclose that total investment returns earned by smaller foundations lag substantially behind those of many larger foundations. One major reason for this difference is that many of the best professional investment manages demand that new accounts to meet certain minimum size requirements. Smaller foundations often do not meet the minimum size. Second, since management investment fees are based on percentages that decline as the size of the account increases, smaller foundations are less able to take advantage of economies of scale and cannot benefit from lower fee levels. This bill would permit foundations to ``band together'' for investment purposes by providing tax-exempt status to common funds handling foundation investments. This would thus give foundation common funds the same tax treatment as educational institution common funds. I feel this is a most appropriate response to a vexing problem. I urge your support.