Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the concurrent resolution offered by Senator Murkowski, which I am pleased to cosponsor. This, very simply, would state the sense of the Senate that we should remove existing restrictions on the right of President Lee Teng-hui, of the Republic of China on Taiwan, to travel to the United States. As my colleagues have already heard, the President of Taiwan wishes to come here to visit his alma mater, Cornell University. However, he cannot, because existing U.S. policy prevents him from staying here overnight. It is certainly no secret to my colleagues that a principal reason for this restriction is the particular sensitivity of the Mainland Chinese Government to how the United States deals with and treats the Taiwanese. I would simply say that I speak as someone who has--and will--stoutly defended the United States-China relationship, even when Mainland China was under attack here in the United States for alleged human rights transgressions. I have consistently argued that the best policy toward China is one of mutual exchange and respect, of cooperation in trade, environmental work, population issues, and all else. So I do not believe that I can fairly be accused of being heedless of the very real and delicate sensitivities that the Chinese might display regarding this matter. However, I believe that it is possible--indeed, imperative--that we be open in our dealings with Mainland China and with Taiwan simultaneously. We must not insult the one in order to please the other. Indeed, even China and Taiwan are coming to increasingly recognize the foolishness of their mutual antagonism of the last several decades. It is still a sensitive and difficult problem for each government, but ``behind the scenes,'' we are seeing more travel across the Taiwan Strait, more investment, more economic and cultural exchange. That relationship is beginning, however slowly, to change. In any case, there are limits to how much we should rebuff the Taiwanese in order to preserve our relationship with Beijing. We should strive to trade with the Chinese, to cooperate with them on a large number of issues, but not to refuse to participate in relationships that are beneficial and proper for the United States. One of these is with the Republic of China on Taiwan. Mr. President, I have always been one who has argued that there is a vital stake in old foes coming together to hammer out their ancient differences and eternal conflicts. I believe that backchannel contacts were indispensable to bringing about the possibility for expanded, public talks to bring about peace in the Middle East and in Ireland. So I have not publicly criticized the administration for its dealings with Yasir Arafat, or with Gerry Adams, or any of a number of at times even justifiable blameworthy international figures. But it does strike me as very odd that we can reach out so much to individuals who have previously engaged in fully criminal conduct, yet we cannot even allow one of our true friends, the President of Taiwan, to come to the United States for a private--I stress, private--visit. And he is indeed a friend to the United States--his administration has made it far easier for the United States to pursue a desirable economic relationship with Taiwan without sacrificing any of our principles on human rights. Taiwan has recently enjoyed the freest and fairest elections in its history. There is unprecedented political competition, and public debate, and fully indulged criticism of the Government, in that country. It is not an American-style democracy by any stretch. But the progress has been quite remarkable. What we have here is a policy of punishment for precisely the type of behavior which we would hope to see in our oversees counterparts. President Lee has not only worked to make the United States-Taiwan relationship less troublesome, but even has exerted energy to lessen strains in the Taiwan-China relationship as well. That takes genuine political courage. So I congratulate my fine friend the Senator from Alaska, Frank Murkowski, for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate, and I pledge to him my full support in this and future efforts to repair and resolve this situation.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, Senator Stennis served with my father in the U.S. Senate. My father, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, served here from 1962 until 1966. He was a former Governor of Wyoming from 1954 until 1958, then came to the U.S. Senate, elected to fulfill a 4-year term, or remaining 4-year term, of a young man who had been elected to the Senate and died before he was sworn in. John Stennis and Mrs. Stennis immediately greeted my father when he came here in the most cordial way. They were very dear friends of my parents. I must say that the philosophy of the western Senator, my father, and the southern gentleman, the Senator from Mississippi, were much the same with regard to national defense, fiscal matters, issues of substance in the social area, of the fabric of the country, and they became fast friends. I recall very distinctly my father called John Stennis ``Mr. Integrity.'' My father invited John Stennis, Senator Willis Robertson, and two other persons to Wyoming. I recall very distinctly. I was a young man practicing law in Cody, WY, and they asked me to join them. Dad took his two Senate friends fishing. You might imagine that John had not ever seen too much of Rocky Mountain trout fishing nor the attire that accompanies such activities. I will never forget him coming from his cabin, very nattily dressed, and he said, ``Milward, is this what we ``No, I think we need something more than that, something a little different.'' Off they went to enjoy a remarkable 2 days together. My father loved John Stennis, and when my father was the recipient of the Milward L. Simpson Chair of Political Science at the University of Wyoming, John Stennis served as his honorary chairman, and said, ``If there is anything I can do for my friend, Milward Simpson, I will do it.'' So it was a great affection and relationship, a true friendship. Then when I, of course, came to the Senate, John Stennis was the first to greet me. He said, ``If there is anything I can do to help you or smooth your path here, let me do it.'' And he did. He was more than charitable, kind, and attentive to me except, of course, when I tried to kill off the Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway. Then there was a definite strain in our relationship--momentary, fleeting. But he said, ``Alan, I cannot believe that you would do that.'' And he was right. I did not believe I could, and did not. That great waterway is a great tribute to personally the perseverance of John Stennis. But what he told me--and I shall never forget--he said ``Alan, I have been watching you.'' I had been here maybe 4 years at the time. ``I have seen you work. I know how hard you work.'' He really buoyed me up. He said, ``You want to remember something in the Senate.'' He said, ``People come here, and some grow and some swell.'' I shall never forget the phrase. ``Some grow and some swell.'' Indeed, we know both categories. I think I have done a little of both. But when I did swell, I was put down a peg or two, to get back to growing instead of swelling. So I want to just pay tribute to John Stennis, and I know my dear parents, both gone, too, would have wanted me to pay tribute to a very dear and lovely friend, and to his memory, which will certainly be present in this Chamber for the remainder of time. He was deeply loved, a man of great stature, and truly a wonderful gentleman, truly a gentleman. So God bless his son and his daughter who survive him. They have a wonderful heritage.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me just say a word about my friend, David Pryor. David Pryor has determined that he will now retire from the Senate, and we came here together. We came here in the class of 1978. There was a class of 20, the largest class ever to come into the U.S. Senate at one time, 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats. We were very close. Those of us who are still here are still very close. In fact, in January of this year, the remaining group of us met together and had dinner together with our spouses, and shared the attitude of how can we make the place work a little better instead of just chopping ourselves to pieces, as we sometimes do. But that goes with the territory. That is politics. It was always a little rough and tumble, and it still will be, and ever shall be, world without end. But David Pryor and Barbara--and there is a remarkable woman. She has chosen to take a little of a secondary role in the life of this wonderful man. Let me tell you, she is in every sense as much a part of David's success in life and fiber as my own wife, Ann, is of mine. So David and I came here, and I was placed in the basement of the Russell Building because it was thought that I was No. 100. Well, the senior Senator from Wyoming had resigned an hour before the deadline of midnight of the New Year. So I was not 100; I was No. 88, which was a significant leapfrog. We have since changed that. We do not do that anymore. But nevertheless, thinking I was No. 100, they placed me in the basement of the Russell Building, with bars on the windows, which were not unfamiliar to me from some of my activities in youth. But, nevertheless, it looked like the sewers of Paris down in there. But I was glad to have any kind of opportunity to be here, thrilled as we all are, and hope always will be, or we shall get out. David Pryor, who I had come to know in those early days, came to visit me in my dungeon surroundings, the durance vile. He said, ``This is quite an office you have here.'' I said, ``It is. But at least I am here.'' He said, ``You need something to brighten it up.'' I said, ``Well, that would be lovely. I think you are right.'' So later in the afternoon he mailed to me, hand carried by courier, a dead plant with the leaves dangling in grotesque, yellowish brown fashion. He said he thought that the plant matched the surroundings of what I had there. And then he later showed up personally to assure himself that I had received this beautiful plant to grace my new surroundings. Well, that is part of David. He is a wonderful friend, and he is a very serious man. He comes to this floor, and he defends his friend, his principal friend, who is a man named Bill Clinton, President of the United States. I used to come to this floor and defend my friend, a man I had known for 35 years named George Bush, President of the United States. And David and I have often laughed at how it is when you are a close friend of a President, because when somebody is here tearing them up, your staff says, ``Get over there; they are doing something bad,'' and you end up dropping what you do and you come over to defend your friend. I have done that with George Bush, and I have seen Dave do it with great loyalty for his friend Bill Clinton. I have always admired him. I have worked with him. There is not a finer, more principled man, a man of remarkable honesty and directness, and a man to whom I once said, ``David, did you run for president of the first grade? Because I don't think you have missed any part of politics. I think you have been in this since your birth.'' When you look at the public record that he leaves behind as a legislator, as a member of the Arkansas Assembly, a Congressman, a Governor, a Senator, the people of Arkansas love this man, and he could have been here as long as he wished. He has decided, however, to do something many, many of us think about more and more often, and that is stepping away, not with irritation or hostility or angst or anguish, just knowing that there are other things to do in life, stepping away just as a person such as Jack Danforth of Missouri--no regret, no recrimination, just stepping away. That is what David has chosen to do, and I just want to say that I wish him well. And he will do well. He looks spirited and relieved and released, had a snappy tan to his face, lilt to his step the other day--he had gone golfing, a shocking revelation. And so to David and to Barbara, special people of special depth, special substance and sensitivity, and their children, David, Jr., Mark, and Scott, who are great friends of our daughter Susan--they grew up together here in Washington--to David and Barbara Pryor, with whom we have shared much, spent time together, talked of things much deeper than legislation, I say Godspeed. I join in wishing them well in a new chapter of their lives which will be very, very fulfilling to them, I am sure, knowing the type of people they are. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I just want to say a few words about two U.S. Senators, one recently deceased and one recently embarked on a spirited new part of life, both of them dear friends of mine--Senator John Stennis of Mississippi and Senator David Pryor of Arkansas.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might proceed for 15 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly in opposition to the pending product liability reform legislation. I have not been vigorous in the debate to this point because there has been so much vigor expressed that I thought I would simply wait for a calmer moment. Let me assure all that it gives me no pleasure at all to be in the position of opposition to many of my good Republican colleagues on this issue. But I have a number of concerns about this legislation--always have had about this type of legislation--which I will just review briefly which compel me to oppose this measure. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I was a lawyer by trade-- as was my father, as was my grandfather, his father before him, and my two sons now; 100 years of Simpsons practicing law in the State of Wyoming and, in fact, practicing law in the same community in the State of Wyoming, Park County and Cody, WY. And so I take great pride in my profession. When I graduated from the University of Wyoming law school, I believed that the profession was very reputable, indeed honorable, and that it meant something, something ennobling, to be a lawyer. And, indeed, I think there are few professions outside of the law where one has the opportunity to directly rectify an inequity or injustice. And this is, I feel, the motivation for many of us who entered the profession. I remember doing lots of pro bono work. I remember charging 35 bucks an hour. I remember doing these things. I was in everything from replevining a one-eyed mule to reorganizing railroads, as the guy said. So I took great pride in the profession. I believe the legislation before us addresses a concern that is very real. There are, indeed--and sadly so--serious abuses and excesses within the practice of law--the profession I love--as there are in every other profession. And one thing that has clearly worsened the public perceptions of our profession is action by a seemingly ever- increasing number of greedy--and that is the word, greedy, avaricious-- attorneys who have used the profession solely for their own gain and not for the public gain. Their sole purpose, at least in some that I have observed, is padding their own particular bank accounts. Time and again I hear accounts of attorneys who have charged many hundreds of dollars for preparing a simple will when the only thing they did was spend 5 minutes cranking the client's name into a computer-generated form. And these abuses do indeed occur. And there are the attorneys, I am sure, who take the 3-hour lunches and play the 18 holes of golf every day and still manage to make a million bucks or more during the course of a year. The point I make in citing those examples is to note that one motive for this legislation is to attack irresponsible, costly behavior by those who practice law. But I would argue that this legislation specifically chooses to weed out the results of such ethical transgressions rather than to correct their root causes in the irresponsible practice of law. It is for lawyers to clean up their own act and to weed from their profession those who soil it and belittle it. Assuredly, irresponsibility may lie behind some of the large awards that are given out in product liability suits. But it does not necessarily follow that the solution is to limit punitive damages so as to affect even those which may be properly arrived at and properly computed. Particular concerns I have about such an approach include the preemption of State tort law and excluding joint and several liability. The latter measure could conceivably eliminate the only recourse of many citizens against substantial harm to their health, at no real cost to the unscrupulous in the legal profession. I believe one of the better results of the November 1994 elections has been to arrest the concentration of power in Washington, and to begin a correction of transferring some of it back to the beleaguered States and localities. And we have done some of that already. Partly for this reason, I oppose any federalizing of the major areas of tort law. This certainly would expand the scope of Federal Government activity by assuming 10th amendment powers that have been properly under the jurisdiction of the individual States for more than 200 years. We must remember that federalization of tort law would, in my mind, severely limit the local citizenry's ability to influence tort law at the local or State legislative level. Greater proximity to the individual citizen would allow us to make certain that the laws adopted are those which best serve the local community's best interest. Federalization also sends the message that we in Congress do not trust the average citizen sitting on a jury to render a fair and equitable award. I can assure you I certainly do not agree with every award about which I have read and studied. But I just do not believe that the solution lies in taking that power away from the citizenry and in having the Federal Government fix the boundaries. I also believe that a statutory limitation on punitive damages will remove a very key motivating factor that now forces companies to design the safest products possible. I in no way imply that American companies as a rule seek to design unsafe products. That would be absurd. But I do believe it would be very poor policy to fix and to limit the cost of such irresponsibility right up front in a way that could maybe be planned around. And by that I mean by limiting punitive damages and setting a figure could--could--result in company officials developing liability scenarios of what they expect to lose from such suits and to ring it up on the scorecard. A hypothetical, unscrupulous company could calculate: ``Well, if we make modification A here in the product, we project only 500 people a year will be injured, or some killed. That would still result in a 20 percent yearly profit margin, even after paying the maximum punitive damages for every one of these injuries or lost lives.'' Now, is that a pipe dream? I do not know. Possibly so. I do not know. But it is unseemly to me to facilitate the attachment of dollar values potentially to the cost of human lives. As a general principle, I believe it is clear that more often than not prescribing local actions at the Federal level does not work--that ``one size fits all'' is not a practical approach. Let us not, therefore, repeat the mistakes of other recent Congresses, and instead leave alone an area which is traditionally under the purview of the States. So let us address the real root of the problem that is found in the legal profession itself--and there are plenty of them, and, I must say, they are grievous in many cases. But it is not in the legal system's infrastructure. It is in the legal profession itself. And the legal profession evolved as a means of protection for our citizens from its beginning. I hear often the quote from Shakespeare, ``Kill all the lawyers.'' Well, there was a reason for that request and that admonition. And that was if they got the lawyers out of the way, they could get on with their nefarious conduct. You want to reread that one. And that is an interesting part of that remarkable phrase in Shakespeare: Kill all the lawyers; because they could not get done what they intended to do if the lawyers had been there to protect. So I just wanted to share those things. I am well aware of what is going to happen to lawyers in this session of the Legislature. I wish there were always the most pristine reasons for that, but one of the most vivid ones in a political body will be simply the fact that the trial lawyers of America faith in the 1994 election and only $101,000 to those of our faith, and they are looking for them, hunting them down. So we have to be a little careful in that atmosphere, I would suggest. Not only did they bet on the wrong horse, they bet everything they had on all of the horses, and they all went backward down the track. That is a part of this that we want to keep in mind, that in the spirit of punishing the trial lawyers who showered forth their worldly goods upon those of the other faith, that we do not react in a way which is injurious to a profession that has protected us all. We all hate lawyers, except we love the one that represents us. Just like politicians, they have a lot of disgust for us, except for those who represent them. So I want to share those views and indicate my opposition to the measure, which has been consistent throughout my time here. I thank the Chair. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the recent tragedy in Oklahoma. Mr. President, throughout our land, so many have already spoken out so eloquently about this, that I can add but little to what has already been said. The suffering of the victims, the inhumanity and cowardice of the bombers, the compassion and heroism of our community of citizens, and our solemn resolution to exact justice and punishment-- all of these have been powerfully attested to already. I will therefore limit myself to praise a particular aspect of our President's handling of this crisis. There has been so much of our American democracy which has shown itself to be worthy of praise and of pride in this last week--from the behavior of ordinary citizens in a time of trial, on up through the labors of rescue and medical teams, through to the highest ranks of our law enforcement agencies, and up to the conduct of the President. I trust that terrorists the world over would be rightly awed and cowed by the great skill, energy, and resolution that has been displayed. In the wake of such a horrible tragedy, there is a terrible feeling of powerlessness, and it exists for all of us, even those of us at the highest levels of government. We had to hope that the perpetrators would be caught. Many had to wait and to hope that loved ones would be found alive. Even those who were actively engaged in bringing relief and justice had to contend with so many factors outside of their control. When I think of what the President faced, I am reminded in a small way of Dwight Eisenhower's recollection of the Normandy invasion. He had done all he could to plan and to provide, but once he issued the fateful order--``Let's go!''--his subordinates scrambled to carry out their tasks, and he was left alone with a sudden realization: that he was now powerless to do more than to hope that his orders would be carried out successfully. I can only imagine that a similar anxiety must have gripped the President as he issued orders which he hoped would bring answers--and arrests--in the wake of this tragedy. He must indeed believe himself to be fortunate that law enforcement agents across the country worked so doggedly and so well, and so successfully, even as much remains to be done. But even with everything the President had to hope for in terms of carrying out an investigation, there still remained a duty that was his, and his alone, as President of the United States. There is no way for a President to delegate the responsibility of speaking for the Nation, and of providing a voice of resolution and reason when events have gone awry. This action of the President has served this country so well in the days after the tragic event. Yet now there appears to be some scapegoating by him today. He first voiced the Nation's determination to bring the criminals to justice. He had steadfastly resisted the temptation to blame the tragedy on specific ethnic or ideological groups. And he gave voice to what so many Americans were feeling, the fundamental commitment to law and to peaceful order shared by nearly all Americans, no matter where they stand politically. It is not a duty to be underestimated. At a time when so many Americans must necessarily feel themselves powerless to fight back against this cowardly attack, the need is great to have their feelings expressed, and to have them channeled into a constructive collective response to this tragedy. In those first few days, the President, even as he worked to comfort the victims of the attack, succeeded in drawing a clearly understood line as to where this Nation stands. He asserted with great force and clarity that, on the one hand, Americans have a right to be suspicious of government, and to exercise their first amendment rights, their second amendment rights, and every other protected right. But this Nation cannot and will not tolerate the exercise of rights that include violent attacks on Federal officials, on their children, or anyone else. I pray that none of us, including the President, become vindictive toward any group in America--whether they are Islamic Americans, conservative organizations, talk show hosts, or anyone else--we must remember that virtually all of these people are as horrified by this violence as are we. The President spoke well soon after the tragedy when he left no doubt that Americans are not divided over these matters, but united in our commitment to law and order, in a way that law-abiding Americans as well as terrorists should be able to understand. And this was an important cathartic process for Americans as we coped with this tragedy. I close by giving my thanks to those in our government who have worked so hard in these last days to ``bind the Nation's wounds.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the pending amendment proposed by the Senator from Iowa. Let me first state that I fully understand the valid impulses that give rise to an amendment such as this. It takes money from Radio Free Europe, and puts it into a small number of other domestic spending categories, some of them bringing benefits to children and to the elderly. The point being made is clear. It is one that we always hear whenever we go to our town meetings. If a Senator such as myself stands up to describe the vast increases in direct transfer payments to American citizens--from the young worker to the older retiree--increases which indeed have driven our deficit to near extremity, one always hears the same old refrain in response: ``What are you going to do about foreign aid? What about Congressional perks?'' Of course, spending on those two items amounts to less than 1 percent of the budget. But as long as some of it is still there, one can always gain a few more political points by taking a little bit more out of international spending, and spending a little bit more on the domestic side. Now, I come to this issue from an unusual stance, which I would hope the Senator from Iowa appreciates. Unlike some of my colleagues on the Republican side, I fully support public broadcasting. I think it is especially valuable in a rural State such as my own, where we simply do not have the market power to make available to our citizens all of the best that commercial programming has to offer in a cost-effective way. But despite my general support for public broadcasting, I oppose this amendment. It would take $40.5 million out of Radio Free Europe in order to make it available for other domestic programs. The first point I would make is that there has been a series of amendments here from the other side of the aisle, each of them designed to score big political brownie points by giving more money to children, to the poor, to the elderly. They're trying to make the crude charge stick, that somehow Republicans are wreaking havoc upon all these programs. It is a war of symbolism, and it is being waged by various feints, jabs and deceptions. I would say to my colleagues over there on that side that I believe this tactic is getting quite worn and tired. The press, believe it or not, is beginning to figure this one out. They did fall a bit for the school lunch sophistry, buying the notion that we were snatching the food out of children's mouths, simply by giving the States more control over that program. But increasingly they are starting to understand what is a cut and what is a slower rate of increase. That's what we are proposing with all domestic and welfare spending generally--and if the American public can't figure that one simple gem of logic out, then they are, all of them, going straight to the poorhouse themselves. So that's what gives rise to these partisan amendments. And of course, if you want to get some money for the ragged and downtrodden, there is no more politically popular place to get it than something that smacks of the evil term ``foreign aid''--as in Radio Free Europe. I would say that the U.S. is still getting a very fine return on its investment in Radio Free Europe. One thing that the collapse of the Berlin Wall has shown to us is the power that Radio Free Europe had in beaming a message of hope and freedom to those striving for democracy. It is said by some that, now that the wall has come down, RFE has outlived its usefulness. But we have seen eloquent testimony that this is not the case. Indeed, Radio Free Europe has moved its base of operations precisely because President Havel of the Czech Republic offered them various forms of subsidy assistance if only they would relocate in Prague. That's what he personally feels about Radio Free Europe's usefulness in the post-Cold War World. If the charge was to be made that Radio Free Europe was too expensive, then the people of Central Europe were willing to chip in their own bucks and give some help in order to enable it to stay. Radio Free Europe has kept its operation up-to-date and relevant. It remains a tremendous source of reliable information on many subjects of international import, often giving more timely and profound coverage of events that the commercial news services. They have managed to stay ahead of the game in a number of areas of particular movement and importance in recent years--reports on the evolution of ethnic tensions as well as burgeoning controversies in economic and military matters. They provide translations of articles in major international newspapers, and academic analysis of events that cannot always be found in commercial papers and broadcasts. In a budget in which we devote less than 1 percent of our resources to trying to affect the course of events beyond our borders in a way that is beneficial to us, it seems to me to be very pennywise and pound foolish, to take yet another whack at something which is so inexpensive to the taxpayer--indeed becoming less expensive as a result of the recent decision to move--simply to make the sudden, cynical political point that the loyal advocates of the amendment stand for more spending for the downtrodden. So I regret to say to the Senator from Iowa that I cannot support his amendment. I would say to him and to the rest of this chamber that if we are squeezing funding for the programs that he has attempted to provide for here, it is not spending on Radio Free Europe that has caused the difficulty. Come the year 2013, unless we do something about entitlement spending, we not only will not have money for Radio Free Europe, but for national defense, highways, prisons--turn them all loose--upkeep of the national parks--nothing. So we should turn the spotlight onto the spending that got us here and we'll be looking for the Senator's vote, otherwise we won't be able to fund any of the programs that the Senator from Iowa or anyone else cares about.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to reaffirm my full support for U.S. funding for the U.N. Population Fund [UNFPA]. President Clinton resumed funding for the Population Fund last year after a 7 year suspension during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Last year, Congress appropriated $40 million for the fund, and $50 million was appropriated for 1995. Unfortunately--and I think unwisely--the House rescinded $25 million of the funding in its emergency supplemental and rescissions bill. With Senator Hatfield's couragous support, the Senate did not rescind any money for the fund in its bill. I am most appreciative of my fine colleagues, Senator Hatfield and his efforts and longstanding support for international population stabilization activities including the UNFPA. I do understand that funding for all programs across the board needs to be reduced if we are to properly fund this supplemental bill. However, I do not want to see population programs unfairly targeted for larger reductions than other foreign assistance programs. Reducing the Population Fund's money by one-half is surely an unreasonable reduction in funding. This huge reduction in funding will surely send exactly the wrong message to the rest of the developed nations across the world. Last year, the United States was seen as the world's leader on population and development assistance at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. I was a congressional delegate at the Conference aid I came away very much impressed with the leadership and direction displayed by Vice President Gore and the assistance given him by our former colleague, Under Secretary of State Tim Wirth in guiding the Conference and its delegates in developing a consensus document on a broad-range of short- and long-term recommendations concerning maternal and child health care, strengthening family planning programs, the promotion of educational opportunities for girls and women, and improving the status and rights of women across the world. We surely do not want to lose our moral leadership role and relinquish any momentum by abandoning or severely weakening our financial commitment to population and development assistance. The United States needs to continue its global efforts to achieve responsible and sustainable population levels, and to back up that leadership with specific commitments to population planning activities. That is why it is so very important that we show our support by funding the U.N. Population Fund. The fund is supported entirely by voluntary contributions, not by the U.N. regular budget. There were 101 donors to the fund in 1993, most of which were developing nations. Japan and the United States are the leading contributors to the fund with the Nordic countries not lagging far behind. UNFPA assistance goes to over 140 countries and territories across the world. It would certainly be a real shame if the United States were to back away from its commitment to the world's largest source of material assistance for population programs. Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. President, I want to join my colleague from Wyoming in expressing my strong support for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). There are many challenges to be faced in the next century with regard to global population growth, and international programs such as UNFPA are critical to the world's population and development assistance efforts. UNFPA, which receives funds from some 101 donor nations, has had a somewhat tumultuous history in the US over the past decade. Indeed, UNFPA funding was suspended altogether during both the Reagan and the Bush Administrations. Under the Clinton Administration, modest funding for UNFPA has resumed. However, of the $50 million appropriated for UNFPA in Fiscal Year 1995, $25 million--or one-half--was rescinded by the House of Representatives in its Emergency Supplemental and Rescissions Bill. Let me emphasize that in these difficult budgetary times, U.S. federal spending, including U.S. contributions to international foreign assistance programs such as UNFPA, need to be adjusted accordingly. However, in this process we must ensure that programs are not unfairly targeted for disproportionate funding reductions. Moreover, I believe it is important in this instance to continue the U.S. leadership role that was demonstrated at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. For these reasons, I believe that a 50 percent cut in funding for UNFPA is excessive, and thus unwise. I was pleased, therefore, to find that the Senate rescissions package does not cut the U.S. allocation for UNFPA. I particularly want to commend and thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, for recognizing the importance of this international effort. UNFPA will continue only if member nations continue to provide it with support. I believe that the United States has a clear interest in the success of UNFPA and similar population and development assistance efforts, and I join with Senator Simpson and my other colleagues in urging the Senate to maintain U.S. support.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes of my time to my friend from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey.

Mr. SIMPSON. May I suggest that order take place.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I cannot tell you how much I enjoy working with the Senator from Nebraska. He and I are going to involve ourselves in a bipartisan effort as a form of a national wake-up call. After the recess is concluded, we will introduce a series of bills which will deal with the real hard stuff in America, which is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Federal retirement. I cannot tell you how much I enjoy and respect and admire the Senator from Nebraska. I have some remarks to make about Social Security. But in my limited time, and listening to the previous debate, I cannot help but reflect, as I listened to the rather dramatic presentation of how, apparently, I gather, Republicans love to be cruel to children and to veterans and to old people, how absurd and bizarre that is. That is the most stupefying type of debate to listen to. It will really be interesting to see how everyone handles the tough votes, the ones that really count, when we try to do something which will assure the future for veterans and the children and the old people; and that is to do something with the entitlement programs which are sucking it all up. We here do not even vote on 68 percent of the Federal budget--no, that just goes out the door to people, regardless of their net worth or their income. Absolutely absurd. All we are trying to do, at least in our party, is to slow the growth of the programs. There is not a ``cut'' in a carload here. We are not ``cutting'' anything. We are trying to slow the growth of programs. If the American people cannot understand that, well, get the other party back in power and start spending it up, because that is exactly where we are. Let us look at that school lunch caper over there in the House. Do you know what they really did? They took a program going up 5.4 percent a year and said, ``Let's let it go up only 4.5 percent a year and let the States handle it with flexibility and less administrative costs,'' which was then reported to the public as breaking catsup bottles over children's heads, and the prospect of swollen-bellied children in little school districts all over America starving to death. That is bosh; absolutely stupefying drivel. So every one of these programs is going up, and we are trying to say, ``slow the growth.'' And try this one, because you will want to be ready for it when we do something to Medicare. And, brothers and sisters, we will do something to Medicare because it is going up 10.5 percent per year regardless of what we do. Then you can watch what happens when we do not allow it to go up 10.5 percent. We are going to let it go up probably 5 percent. The headline will be: ``Congress slashes Medicare 50 percent.'' Be ready for that one. When a 5-percent increase is described as a 50-percent cut, and it is believed the American people deserve exactly what they are going to get. I keep hearing about Head Start. Guess what? Why not use the correct figures? Head Start is mentioned every single day as some kind of thing the Republicans love to chop on. Well, here are the correct figures and they come from Democrats and Republicans alike in this body. In fiscal year 1990, $1.6 billion; in fiscal year 1996, $3.9 billion. So from fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1996, Head Start has more than doubled. It has had more than a 140-percent increase, and everybody knows it. If they do not, they are going to get exactly what they deserve. It comes from a bent of being stupid about what is really happening in America. The recent trustees' report on Social Security is another classic example of stupefying logic. We are now told that, instead of going broke in the year 2029, it will go broke in the year 2031. Is that not thrilling? Nearly the same numbers as last year; certain disaster. The facts all speak for themselves. The trustees say Social Security will start running deficits in 2015 and go broke in 2031. Disability insurance is already running deficits and it will go broke in the year 2016. The Medicare trust fund will start running deficits in 1996, and will go broke in the year 2002. But have stout heart, because last year, it was to go broke in the year 2001. So this is cheerful news It will now go broke in the year 2002. That is like a cancer patient being told, ``You lucky fellow, you are going to have 6 months to live instead of 5.'' The trustees go on to use phrases like ``extremely unfavorable'' and ``severely out of financial balance'' when talking about the Medicare trust fund. And the trustees urge that all these reforms be undertaken sooner rather than later. So that is where we are. Doomsday dates, just about the same, using intermediate assumptions--not the best assumptions, not the worst--but the best ``in between'' estimate of what the future holds. And we know that they assume that the Consumer Price Index will hover between 3 and 4 percent until the year 2002 and will never go above 4 for the year 2070. Yet one uptick in the Consumer Price Index of one-half of 1 percent will cost the Government about 7 billion bucks annually for Social Security alone. And if we were to see another few years of high inflation, as in the late seventies and early eighties when the CPI hit 13.4 percent, Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, only 1 year of that type of increase would cost the Government more than 126 billion bucks--1 year. In light of this report, it is well to reflect on the real, honest- to-God reasons for exploding Federal spending. I know the AARP, the American Association of Retired People, hates to hear this, but it is time they do. That group is the 33 million people paying 8 bucks a year dues to do it. They are bound together by a common love of airline discounts and auto discounts and pharmacy discounts and all the rest. Here is what they do not want you to hear: The growth of these programs is what is creating the true hazard in America. They have consistently argued that other than health care, entitlements are not growing faster than the rest of the GDP. That is simply wrong--it is a misapplication of fact--it is actually a lie. According to the trustees themselves, Social Security costs would grow from 4.2 of GDP in 1995 to 5.1 by 2020, and more than 5.7 by the year 2045. That is a 40-percent increase relative to the current share of GDP. I hope when we listen to the debate and when the organs of the AARP and other senior groups begin to rap on us, that we remember that these nonprofit organizations have myriad and lucrative activities in which they engage. We will have them before the subcommittee, of which I chair, to tell us So here we go. By the year 2045, the trustees' report shows that more than 14 percent of the GDP will go into Social Security and Medicare programs alone. And get this one: In the year 2030, there will have to be a 30 percent payroll tax to pay for Social Security. Oh, yes, you can get there; yes, you can; you can do it with more payroll tax; you can get there that way to pay for Social Security and Medicare. And we here have done all this to ourselves. The President did not do it. President Clinton did not do it. President Bush did not do it. We did it. We have done it ourselves. We have served as pack horses to drag money back to our States, and we have done a magnificent job for 50 years. Just look at our record. The more you drag home, the more you get reelected. Now the people are waking up from a long slumber. Rip Van Winkle could not have matched it. I plan to work hard with my good friend, Bob Kerrey, to introduce legislation to shore up the Social Security and Medicare trust funds in order that it will not be in the cards to leave our children and grandchildren with the burden of paying payroll tax rates of 30 percent and beyond in all the years to come. You can run but you cannot hide on this one. The tough votes will be coming, and it will be very interesting to see who casts them. My hunch is the people who give us the business about this and this and this item, which is really peanuts in the great scheme, will not cast the tough votes when they know we full well have to have those votes to stop runaway systems that we do not even vote on, which are up now to 68 percent of the entire national budget. I earnestly hope that we will have a good bipartisan effort to resolve it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment would unfairly rescind building and facilities money that was finally committed 2 years ago to the Environmental Simulation Facility at the University of Wyoming. Years ago, the Wyoming Legislature resolved to assist the University of Wyoming in matching the Federal grant of $9.2 million. This amendment would rescind $1.1 million, a most vital part of the commitment made by Congress to this important environmental project. The laboratory, which is now in the final planning stages, would provide research in surface and groundwater contamination caused by agricultural chemicals. It will give us a testing facility in which we can control key environmental conditions and apply serious environmental management techniques to evaluate their effectiveness and cost. As we work to bring about increased efficiency in our agricultural conservation efforts--this facility will be of high national importance and value. But the issue here is not whether this is a ``worthy'' project, but rather that the University of Wyoming and the State legislature have fully supported this proposal through its planning stages and now that we are nearly ready to break ground, Congress is considering pulling the plug and chucking all the time and money already spent down the drain. I would urge that you carefully consider the investments and commitments that have previously been made and vote against this amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, there are four of us here on the floor--Senator Pressler, Senator Levin, Senator Heflin, and myself. We all came here together in the class of 1978. Howell Heflin and I were immediately placed on the Judiciary Committee. Senator Levin, being more adroit, and Senator Pressler, too, managed to escape service there. But Howell Heflin and I went to the Judiciary Committee side by side, freshmen Senators. And we went immediately to work on the issues that always confronted a Judiciary Committee, things like--tough ones-- issues of judges, issues of immigration, issues of civil rights, the balanced budget amendment. One of the greatest privileges I had was watching this man work on the balanced budget amendment, day after day, year after year. The first bill out amendment. And we were very close and I feel we will get there this year. It will largely be a tribute to you, sir, when it occurs, to Howell Heflin. And always you were supportive and helpful to me. When I would seek your counsel, you would give it in a most honest and refreshing way, with that extraordinary honesty and integrity that is, sadly enough, sometimes lacking, but not always. But to me, you were a steady, thoughtful friend and very, very wise. I do not know many people who are wise. I know brilliant people. I know thoughtful people. I know intelligent people. You are a combination of all those things, but you have a wisdom and common sense which is enviable. And in our travels together, you and I have a great common bond, and that is humor; good humor. I will miss your no-tie Hawkins stories, but not much. And I will share with you the toast to water again, and the great story on whiskey, of course, which is memorable in itself. But, you and Mike have traveled side by side, as Ann and I have, through many years of life. And that remarkable woman at your side is one of the most special ones to me and to my wife, Ann. So as you go on to new things, knowing that the actual essence of your life is your good humor, it reminds me of what my mother said-- that humor is the universal solvent against the abrasive elements of life. You have lived that way and you have helped us all by just saying, ``Relax. Settle down. We have a job to do. Don't get swept up in the emotion of it.'' The counsel, the friendship, the trust you gave to me are deeply appreciated. We have shared much together. You are a very dear friend and we wish you well. Good luck and Godspeed. We will enjoy these many months more of working with you on things that will come to pass simply because of your presence, and the fact that you have decided to leave us will impel us to do things that are left undone that we will get done as a tribute to you. I thank the Chair. Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending legislation, which would provide for disaster relief and for accompanying rescissions. This is not by any measure a partisan bill--indeed, it was put together by the Appropriations Committee in the same fine bipartisan spirit that has always characterized that committee, and the relationship between two very fine and capable men--Chairman Hatfield and the ranking member, Senator Byrd. I do believe, however, that there is good cause for many of us who are now in the majority, to be particularly pleased with this legislation. If there was one glaring, disturbing symptom of ``business as usual'' in Washington as practiced for too many recent years, it would be the practice of always saying ``yes'' to new spending, even when most always failing to make the hard decisions to pay for it. One category of spending in which this has been most obvious has been the area of disaster relief. It is, of course, entirely fitting and proper that we provide assistance to those who are in need solely because of an ``act of God.'' But we have too often simply appropriated this money, added it to the Federal deficit, and failed to prioritize our spending priorities within existing spending levels. I joined our distinguished leader, Senator Dole, during the last session, in attempting to provide for a full spending cut offset during the last time the Senate considered emergency disaster appropriations. We failed in that effort, I am quite sorry to say. But today we see here a bill that not only provides for needed disaster assistance, but more than makes up for that new spending with an even larger amount of spending cuts. This, to me, means that we have truly arrived at a brand new day in Washington. Let me assure my colleagues that we do no extra, special service to the victims of disaster, nor to our future generations, by simply adding the tab for such spending to the future national debt. We do not need to be reminded that we will soon be asked to vote the debt limit up to $5 trillion--an astonishing, incomprehensible, inconceivable figure. The accumulation of such massive debts does not assist us in our efforts to cope with disasters or to forestall their worst effects. It only undercuts our ability to adequately provide for such work. There has never been a good policy reason to add such spending to accumulating debts. Rather, the existence of a natural emergency, of a climate of urgency, has simply been used extensively by this Congress as an excuse--a ``good'' reason to deficit-spend. I am so very pleased to stand here today and be considering a bill that will provide for those in need but will not add to the Nation's debt. I think it is notable that the first amendment to this legislation--offered by our fine colleague Senator Mikulski--sought not to strike the proposed rescissions from the bill--but rather to replace the targeted, considered rescissions with ``across-the-board'' cuts. I opposed that amendment, as I believe the targeted approach to be the better way to prioritize our spending. I agree with my friend Senator Bond that we appear to assume that existing priorities are perfectly set whenever we attempt across-the- board cuts--though surely they are not. But I take heart in the offered amendment as well--the consideration of such an amendment first shows us that we are in a new atmosphere these days, in which fiscal prudence is considered to be desirable. It shows that the voters indeed drove their message home hard last November. I feel very pleased that my colleagues will approve the pending rescissions legislation. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it was with the greatest of enthusiasm that I chose to support the line-item veto legislation. In just a few weeks, all of us will be asked to cast our votes to raise the debt ceiling for this country to more than $5 trillion. It is difficult to comprehend the enormity of this figure. If you took those 5 trillion individual dollars and laid them end to end, they would span the vast icy distance between the Earth and Moon almost 2,000 times. The line-item veto represents a small but most significant first step toward processes to ensure greater fiscal responsibility. I believe the measure that we recently passed is the best workable compromise between various approaches and will make this legislation very effective. I am particularly pleased by the inclusion of a ``lockbox'' provision to ensure that any spending that is ``zeroed out'' is earmarked for deficit reduction. Our past experience with spending patterns here in Congress demonstrates why it was crucial to include this provision. I have seen a number of programs terminated on the Senate floor, after hours of spirited debate centered around the question--``can we afford it''? After concluding that we could not afford the program in question, we terminated the program, then failed to adjust the spending caps downward, meaning that we simply spent the money on something else. Such a ``loophole'' in this legislation would be a costly and destructive provision that would make a mockery of this measure. Without the lockbox provision the President could terminate a program with an eye toward seeing those funds reprogrammed in another direction. Or, Congress could simply retitle or reallocate the funding items which failed to pass muster. That would subvert the clear intention of this sharpened tool, which is to enable the President to assist in slowing down and reducing Government spending. What pleases me the most about this legislation is that its modified form will permit the President to confront the problem of rising entitlement spending. This is, as we well know, the fastest growing category of Federal spending, and the single greatest cause of runaway debt. In the past, one overused tactic used to evade the discipline of discretionary spending caps has been to promote new programs in the form of mandatory entitlements. This designation has shielded them from annual scrutiny through the appropriations process and creates an ever expanding ``black hole'' into which our Federal dollars disappear. Giving the President a chance to ward off future trespasses in area will make this legislation much more effective in controlling spending. Opponents of this measure have criticized the line-item veto on the basis of or experience with it at the State level. Sometimes they say that such authority is not easily applied at the Federal level, or worse yet, that it does not even work in the States. The latter contention is simply flat-out wrong. The line-item veto does work effectively at the State level. We heard testimony to that effect in the Judiciary Committee, where we learned of countless instances in which governors have used the power to eliminate wasteful spending from appropriations bills. It is one reason why no State has a fiscal crisis on the order of compare to our Federal deficit. I fully understand the sincerity of opponents of this measure when they voice fears that the line-item veto would give to much power to the President. The allegation has been made that the President could use this power to punish individual legislators, indeed to carry out a personal vendetta against a particular Congressman or Senator. I simply believe that due reflection on this matter will show that there is little to fear from such a situation occurring. First of all, these vetoes will not be made in secret. The press will eagerly report on the items evaluated in their own right, quite apart from any personal issues surrounding them. Regardless of the President's personal feelings about any legislator, the final test of the issue will be whether or not the spending is appropriate. Both the President and the Congress will have to make the appropriate case as to whether or not the spending should occur. I was extremely pleased when Bill Clinton, as a candidate for the Presidency, indicated his support for a line-item veto. We on our side of the aisle, have delivered such an option to him. It is a good time to do it--with a Republican Congress and Democratic President. It is a clear indication that this should not be a partisan issue. It should be an issue around which fiscally responsible legislators on both sides can rally. Many of my colleagues are already very familiar with a process that I have seen too often in my 16 years of Senate service. We send a popular bill down to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue only after we have loaded it up with a pile of pet pork projects, knowing full well that the President has to swallow everything in order to get the provisions that are so desired by him. There might be clearly wasteful spending in that package, but the President must nonetheless feel compelled to sign the bill simply because it is the only way to preserve ``essential'' spending or other legislative language. This problem is compounded when the President is sent the appropriations bills at the 11th hour of the congressional session. The President must sign those, or else risk a temporary shutdown of vial Government functions. The veto in its current form is a terribly crude blunt instrument, and it does not enable the President to deal effectively with these situations. Passage of the line-item veto will finely make it a more precise and agile tool, one which can be surgically wielded effectively on behalf of the U.S. taxpayer.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Simpson pertaining to the introduction of S. 559 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Film Disclosure Act of 1995. This legislation would recognize the interest we all have in preserving the integrity of one of the most uniquely American of art forms--the motion picture. I personally recoil at the thought of colorizing such classics as ``Casablanca'' or ``The Maltese Falcon.'' These films were intended to be shown in black and white by their creators. Perhaps the most vivid example of an inappropriately altered film is the colorization of ``Lost Horizon.'' That film was necessarily filmed in black and white because the mythical paradise in which it is set-- Shangri-La, a name that has come down through the decades--is formed by the author's and the audience's imagination. I personally knew one of the stars of the movie, Isabel Jewell, a marvelous woman, she filled me with imagination as she described the filming of that remarkable film. It is up to the viewer of ``Lost Horizon'' to ``fill in the blanks'' when visualizing that paradise. Quite frankly, I find colorization of that particular film to be demeaning and wholly inappropriate--unfair, if you will. However, I also believe that any legislation that addresses film alteration must recognize the realities of the international market. The motion picture industry ranks high among all industries in producing a positive cash flow in the U.S. balance of trade. While protecting the artistic integrity of motion pictures, I believe it is also essential that Congress do nothing to impede or harm the financial arrangements by which motion pictures are made and distributed. The object of this legislation is to ensure that the artistic authors of motion pictures--principal directors, screenwriters and cinematographers--may be able to inform the viewing public about any significant changes that are made to their work by studios or by television stations. The bill requires that labels be affixed to all films that are exhibited in a ``materially altered'' form. The label would contain two parts: first, the nature of the alterations would be described, and second, the objection, if any, of the principal artistic authors to the alterations would be clearly stated. This bill does not prohibit the exhibition of materially altered films. Nor does the bill allow the principal artistic authors to have their names stricken from the altered versions of the film. The bill is ``truth in packaging.'' That is what it is, nothing more. It simply gives the consumers of films vital information on: first, the changes that have been made to the film, and second, the objection of the film's author to those changes, if such an objection exists. I might add that film authors in many European countries have much more extensive rights to object to significant alterations of their work than this bill would provide. Here are the types of alterations--made by people other than the artistic authors--that this bill would require to be labeled: first, colorization; second, panning and scanning--changing the film's image to fit wider movies onto the narrower television screen; third, lexiconning--altering the sound track; fourth, time compression or expansion--speeding up or slowing down a film; and fifth, editing-- removal of material or insertion of new material. I know people understand that these alterations occur with surprising frequency. It is my personal belief that many of these alterations pass unnoticed by a viewing public which might wish to see the original version intended by the artist. I also believe that these alterations could discourage some artistic authors of films from making innovative films in the future. This would be a sad result. However, let me emphasize again that this bill does not prevent alterations. It does not prevent copyright owners from changing the movie when it is distributed into the secondary markets--such as television or video stores. The bill simply will provide consumers with information on the workings of the market place for movies: it merely allows consumers of films to make the most informed choice possible when making their marketplace decision about what films to watch. Mr. President, a little more knowledge never hurt anyone. I have visited over the years on this issue with directors and artists and actors and actresses who are offended to see the work that they have placed all of their energy and effort and skill and reputation into, seeing it jerked around, if you will, by people who have no sense or no sensitivity about the meaning of the train scene in a certain movie or this particular scene in ``High Noon'' or whatever was done with power, passion and skill by directors and actors and actresses. That is what it is about. It is about knowledge. It is about the public's right to know. I hope that as this bill is reported to the American public, we will wrap around the cherished phrase of all journalists, the public's right to know. That is exactly what this is. More knowledge will not hurt any of the consumers. This is all the bill provides, more knowledge to the consumer about the original artist's intent when a film is publicly shown. Mr. President, I commend this bill to my colleagues and ask for their support and ask unanimous consent a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I wish to announce publicly that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will hold a hearing on Thursday, March 9, 1995, at 10 a.m. in SR-418, Russell Senate Office Building. The committee has two purposes for holding this hearing. First, we will receive testimony on the nomination of Mr. Dennis M. Duffy to be the Department of Veterans Affairs' Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning. Mr. Duffy currently serves as VA's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Liaison. Second, the committee will hear testimony from officials of three Federal entities--the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Department of Labor, Veterans Employment and Training Service; and the Court of Veterans Appeals--on those entities' proposed budgets for fiscal year 1996. We also intend to receive testimony from representatives of veterans' service organizations concerning the fiscal year 1996 budget for veterans programs. The committee would be pleased to receive written statements from members of the public concerning these matters. Such statements may be submitted to the Committee's offices. Members of the public may also contact Mr. William F. Tuerk, the committee's general counsel, if they have questions or need information concerning the subject matter of this hearing.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I return here to a familiar refrain, a theme revisited, not, as has my good friend from Montana, with regard to the balanced budget amendment or base closing. Those are critical issues we will face in these next weeks. But there is one that we will face that is rather awesome in nature, too, and that is the issue of illegal immigration. Mr. President, on January 24 I introduced S. 269, the Immigrant Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1995. At that time I presented to my colleagues and to the American people a rather general overview of the bill. Today I wish to describe in greater detail one particular part of this legislation--the requirement for a new system to verify eligibility to work in the United States and to receive benefits under certain government-funded programs of public assistance. Let me speak first about the urgent need for effective enforcement of the current law against knowingly employing aliens in U.S. jobs for which they are not authorized, and about the simple fact that such law cannot ever effectively be enforced without a more reliable system to verify work authorization. After explaining clearly why a new system is needed, I will describe to you the provisions of S. 269 which will require--no, demand--the implementation of such a system. need for employer sanctions Mr. President, it has been recognized for so many years--I would hunch for as long as there has been interest in the issue, and that is quite a time--that the primary magnet for most illegal immigrants is the availability of jobs that pay so much better than what is available in their home countries. It is also widely recognized that satisfactory prevention of illegal border entry is most unlikely to be achieved solely by patrolling the very long U.S. border. That border of the United States is over 7,000 miles on land and 12,000 miles along what is technically called ``coastline.'' Furthermore--and heed this or hear it--the real sea border consists of over 80,000 miles of what the experts at the Nautical Charting Division of the National Ocean Service call ``shoreline,'' including the shoreline of the outer coast, offshore islands, sounds, bays, and other major inlets. And patrol of the border is, of course, totally inadequate to deal with foreign nationals who enter the United States legally--for example, as tourists or students--and then choose openly, blatantly to violate the terms of their visa, by not leaving when their visa expires or by working at jobs for which they are not authorized. Therefore, every authoritative study I have seen has recommended a provision such as that in the 1986 immigration reform law, making it unlawful to employ illegal aliens--those who entered the United States illegally and those violating the terms of their visa. These studies include that of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, on which I served over 10 years ago, and the Commission on Immigration Reform, now doing such fine and consistent work. They are doing beautiful work under the able chairman, former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. Such studies also recognize that an employer sanctions law cannot possibly be effective without a reliable and easy-to-use methods for employers to verify work authorization. Accordingly, the 1986 law instituted an interim verification system. This system was designed to use documents which were then available, even though most of them were not resistant to tampering or counterfeiting. Not only that, but it is surprisingly easy and totally simple to obtain genuine documents, including a birth certificate. Thus, we believed then that the system would most likely need to be significantly improved. In fact, the law called for ``studies'' of telephone verification systems and counterfeit-resistant Social Security cards. Unfortunately, the interim system is still in place today, over 8 years later. This is true even though--as many of us feared and which certainly came to pass--there is widespread fraud in its use. as effective in deterring illegal immigration as it could be--and should be. In the fiscal year that ended about a month before the 1986 law passed, apprehensions of illegal aliens had reached the highest level ever--1.8 million. After the law passed, there was a decline for 3 years to just over 900,000. But then the level began to rise again. The latest figure available is for the fiscal year that ended in September--1.3 million. It is most assuredly disgraceful that, over 8 years after a law was enacted making it unlawful to knowingly employ illegal aliens, so many are still able to find work, thus still having that powerful incentive to violate America's immigration laws in doing so. We must do better. An improved system to verify eligibility to work in this country must be implemented--in order that the enforcement tool with the greatest potential to deter illegal entry and visa abuse can produce the benefit that is required. Mr. President, as I said in my introductory statement on the 24th, ``We must be able to assure the American people that whatever other goals our immigration policy may pursue, its overriding goal is to serve the long-term interest of the majority of our citizens.'' It is our paramount duty as legislators to serve that singular interest, and that is precisely what the goal of our immigration laws should be. Yet no matter how successful we might be in crafting a set of immigration laws that would--in theory, at least--lead to the most long-term benefit to a majority of U.S. citizens and their descendants, such benefit will not actually occur if those laws cannot be enforced. Effective enforcement requires effective employer sanctions, and effective employer sanctions requires an effective verification system. It is just that simple. Nothing more. And S. 269 is intended above all else to lead to a verification system that has the needed degree of effectiveness. S. 269 would require the President to implement a new verification system--the word is ``implement''--not merely talk about it; not merely establish scores of studies to talk about it and read about it, to do it. And it imposes an 8-year deadline for the implementation. The bill does not require that any particular form of verification be used, only that it satisfy certain criteria of effectiveness and protection for privacy and civil liberties. It also authorizes separate 3-year demonstration projects in five or more States, so that the design of the final, nationwide system would be based not only on theory, but on what has actually been found to work in practice. The system must reliably verify first, that the person who the applicant claims to be is authorized for the work, and second, that the applicant actually is this person. If the system requires that a card or other document be presented it must be in a form that is resistant to tampering and counterfeiting. Most importantly, very importantly, the bill explicitly states that no such card or other document may be required by any Government entity as a ``national ID card,'' and I have been through all that. It is not to be required to be carried on a person. It is not to be presented except at the time to verify eligibility to work or to receive benefits under Government-funded programs of public assistance. There is a tremendous fraud in the receipt of Government-funded public assistance. We will hold hearings on the issue of SSI fraud, disability insurance fraud. With regard to the Social Security system, people bring their relatives from another country and say they are disabled, they do not speak English, they need the help of our Government, and we, as Americans, generously respond. But that system needs careful attention. We found recently one of the applications for that particular benefit had been filed overseas, so they have figured that one out. They are beginning even to file for assistance from a foreign country, come here, take them to the agency, and say: Here is this person; they require assistance; they do not speak English; they are not well. And then they are placed in our social support system, our safety nets, the ones for our U.S. citizens. This is not what the safety net is about. This was part of the reaction of proposition 187 in California. The document will be used only to enforce certain criminal statutes related to fraudulent statements or fraudulent manufacturer or use of documents. Let me just share this most fascinating picture ID. I did this several weeks ago, but it is so dazzling that I thought I would do it again. Several months ago, a member of my staff was contacted by a person in California who said, ``Look, just send me Simpson biostatistics, and we will go from there.'' So he just went down--this is a dazzling picture of one of the most certainly attractive Members-- oh, no, excuse me. This gentleman here is a very astute, wise-looking fellow. This is my California identification card, which expires on my birthday, September 2, in the year 1998. Alan Kooi Simpson. My address, I have never heard of. I have never been to Turlock, CA, but the mayor has contacted me and made me an honorary citizen. I appreciated that, and I enjoyed the lovely letter. There is an address here of 4850 Royal, Turlock, CA, and included are the correct vital statistics. This is not my signature. All right, that was obtained on a street corner in Los Angeles, at night, with $100 bill. It was illegal, of course, but someone else did it. My father always taught me, in the practice of law, ``If anyone goes to jail, be sure it is your client.'' Now, it is my Social Security card. I did block out two of the numbers, but here it actually is. This is not my number. This is a counterfeit-resistant so-called card. It has the same material in it, and so I am now in the Social Security system with somebody else's number. I do not know whose number this is. I am not sharing with you the entire number. Now, that is just a $100 bucker, an overnighter. This document would enable me to seek public assistance in California. I could go into any public assistance agency. There is a holographic card, and this is the correct one. But if you were not careful and you were not looking carefully, you would not notice the holograph in the true card. So this little card which is reproduced here would enable me to get social support. It would likely even enable me to vote in certain jurisdictions of California. It would certainly get me a driver's license, and it would get me into the money stream. Now, that is what is happening in your country. It is endemic. Within 500 yards of this building, we can pick up not only these--these are minor documents, they will get a person anything--but a person can pick up passports, pick up birth certificates. So we have a cottage industry of fake documents. The documents then lead into things like Social Security and workmen's compensation, and drain away the systems of the country. So this is what we are up to. We are going to do something with documentation. We are going to do something to people who provide these documents. We are going to see that we might use the driver's license system, the holographic system in the State of California. But we are going to see that these documents are not easily forged, and those who do forge them and produce fraudulent documents will serve big time in the big place. Now, these are the only uses to which any form of the system might be utilized, including one not even relying on the presentation of documents--for example, a telephone call-in system. We might look into that. That is part of the recommendation. The bill also provides that the privacy and security of any personal information obtained for or utilized by the system must be carefully protected. It must be treated as highly confidential information, and not made available to any person except as is necessary to the lawful operation of the system. Furthermore, a verification of eligibility to any person may not be withheld or revoked for any reason other than that the person is ineligible under the applicable law or regulation. The bill explicitly provides all of those protections. So, Mr. President, in concluding, I feel so very strongly that the greatest contribution this current Congress could make toward the enforcement of effectiveness of the current law against the knowing employment of aliens not authorized to work or even to be present in this country. The passing of a bill such as S. 269 would be a monumental step toward making that contribution. In the coming weeks, I will make additional statements to this body, describing other provisions of S. 269 and exactly why those provisions are important. Hearings will begin at the end of that period in the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, which I chair. And a fine group of Members are on that subcommittee, Democrat and Republican alike. I look forward to working with my ranking member, Senator Kennedy. He and I have worked together on immigration issues for 17 years. Hearings will be held. We will consider all other immigration reform legislation from all of my colleagues, comprehensive, bipartisan, as well as specific proposals such as this one for the accuracy of a more fraud-resistant system for issuing these documents. We have to look into the one for issuing of birth certificates and matching records. Can Senators believe we do not even match birth and death records? I sincerely look forward to hearing the ideas of my fine colleagues on these issues. Then we will be able to avoid things that are bringing down the system, things that give rise to the power of the force of proposition 187. It reminded me of the story of the child who was at the graveyard in a jurisdiction noted for rather shabby election processes. Pick your own State, as you might imagine. The child was crying, and the person came up and said, ``Son, why are you crying?'' And he said, ``I just learned that my dad came back to vote, and I never even saw him.'' So we do want to try to avoid that in the future, because people use these cards to vote, to vote themselves largess from the Treasury, to then draw on our resources that we taxpayers--legal taxpayers--provide. That must stop. There is a way to stop it. We propose that. I would enjoy working and will enjoy, as I always have, working with all of my colleagues on this most serious issue. We are very dedicated to this process. I intend to spend a great deal of time and effort in these next months in doing responsible immigration reform--not only illegal immigration, but legal immigration. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate that from my friend from Minnesota. I have listened with great interest. I yield myself 11 minutes of the remaining time of the floor manager and would share with my colleague from Minnesota that I had not intended to come by, but I was moved by his comments. His remarks were very heartfelt. They were very sincere. I have no doubt that he speaks from the heart children, and that has been the subject of the morning's activity. The reason I came here, Mr. President, is that all of us share these passions, all of us share these pent-up feelings. And yet those passions and feelings led me to almost precisely the opposite conclusion reached by my friend from Minnesota. I look at our Nation, I look at our Federal budget, and I see the injustice done to America's children. I see a Federal Government that spends 11 times as much per capita on the elderly as we do on the children. I see a Government unresponsive to the needs of children. We see these poverty rates for children surpassing poverty rates for any other group. I am completely in agreement with the Senator from Minnesota when he decries the diversion of national resources from the children. But I will tell you what is happening to children in this country. What is happening is we have gone from a society that used to channel its resources toward the young into one which channels resources away from them. If you want to know why we do not devote the proper share of resources to our children, it is very simple. It is because of exploding spending in other parts of the Federal budget is paralyzing our ability to make proper choices. Here is a statistic, and I shared it the other day: In the year 2013--and this scenario was agreed to by 30 of the 32 of us on the Entitlements Commission--due to the growth in entitlements, every penny of Federal revenue under current law will only be sufficient to fund entitlements and interest on the debt. That is not a dry statistic. It means something. It means this country is depriving itself of the ability to make decisions how to provide for transportation, education, and child nutrition. All of this leads to one issue. What are we going to do with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Federal retirement? This is not about defense or spending on highways or education. It is about writing checks from one generation to another. Some powerful statistics have been shared by the Senator from Minnesota. May I share just a few of my own. Here is one: The national debt is 48,000 bucks per taxpayer. Assuming 100 million taxpayers, that will soon be 50,000 bucks a taxpayer, with a national debt of $5 trillion. Children now come into life owing that when they are born. That is the burden we place on them. We pay more than $200 billion a year to finance the debt. What could that do for child nutrition, for vaccination, for education? It is not there. It is gone. Went out the window. An interest payment. Also, I do not find the argument compelling that we should simply give up on a balanced budget amendment and continue to add to that burden. And we will always give up, because we will come to this floor and vote for everything our constituents ask us to bring home. We are like pack horses. They just load us with requests for funding, and we come out here and we load the money home. Here is another statistic for you. The elderly make up 12 percent of the Nation's population. What percent of the Federal entitlement spending do they receive? The answer is 60 percent. Not 60 percent to the most needy population group--children--but 60 percent going to this other relatively smaller group, the 12 percent of our country who are senior citizens. And here is one for you. If you are a millionaire, a millionaire over the age of 65, these are the various Federal entitlements you can receive. You can get Social Security, Medicare, an extra tax deduction, senior nutrition programs, and other subsidies under the Older Americans Act. That is if you are a millionaire--and those keep coming after you receive your entire lifetime contributions in Social Security back, plus interest. We act around here as if there are no consequences to what we do. I wish I had not served on the Entitlements Commission, and yet I am very pleased I did. I admire Senator Kerrey and Senator Danforth so very much. So the reaction from everybody I talk to is, ``Well, OK, I do have some ideas. Where are they? Why don't we means test part B premiums so that a millionaire pays as much for the benefit as the working class taxpayer?'' On, no, we could not do that. What are we going to do when two people are paying in and one person is taking out of the Social Security system? How long do you think people are going to stand still for that? So the inevitable result of shoveling so much of our Nation's resources in the direction of one politically organized, powerful voter group--the seniors--is precisely why we are here in this situation. It is a situation where there is nothing left for the children. That is precisely why we must stand up to the endless pressure to lavish entitlement benefits even on wealthy seniors. I am not talking about needy seniors portrayed as foraging out of garbage cans in alleys, but whether upper income beneficiaries should receive those ever-increasing Government benefits. I implore the body to free itself from illusions about our Federal budget situation. We cannot hold entitlement benefits for the wealthy sacrosanct on one day--when they now make up the majority of the budget--and come on hard the next to decry the lack of help for our children. That simply does not add up. In the year 2040 what fraction of the national payroll taxes will be needed simply to support two programs, Social Security and Medicare under current law? The answer is 38 to 53 percent before we collect a penny of income tax. Anyone truly concerned about the welfare of the children should come here and explain why we should fail to means test Medicare part B, why we should give full Social Security COLA's to millionaires--when COLA's were never part of the original contract. Remember these are the programs sucking it up. So, explain that to our children, why we should continue to do this to them. When I am joined by Senators who are ready to do this kind of work, I will feel more heartened in the cause. Then I guess there is another thing. I heard the letters read, and they are poignant. Let me tell you one from real life. My wife's father worked on the railroad in Greybull, WY. He died when she was 16. Her mother and the two other children had only their home. So their mother went to Laramie, the home of the University of Wyoming, and became a house mother at the Kappa Sig house. My wife Ann and her twin sister Nan worked their way all the way through college. So did their brother Rob. The sisters worked as waitresses, and they worked as cabin girls at dude ranches. She bought all of her own clothes and necessities, worked for everything she obtained, and earned all of her own money, and never thought of herself as a victim. It is called going to work to achieve something you can achieve. Now we have an entire country waiting for the Federal Government to make them whole. And we can all read stories like those shared. It is now a nation of victims. The greatest victims are the children, and the greatest reason for that is because there is not one on the floor who will take on the senior citizens of America who--regardless of their net worth or their income--are pulling the temple down. I have no further remarks at this time. I reserve the remainder of the time for Senator Hatch.