Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this is one of the periodic missions assigned to those who chair the Veterans' Affairs Committee or who serve as ranking member during the debate on any issue that has anything to do with veterans. I am a veteran. There are 27 million veterans. I know some get tired of me quoting the statistics. But I do not get tired of it, because the American people have been forced, in this debate on the balanced budget, to wake up and figure what is going to happen to them. My wake-up call came during service on the Entitlements Commission, the bipartisan Entitlements Commission, chaired so ably by Senator Bob Kerrey and Senator Jack Danforth. And 30 of the 32 of us--a very diverse group ranging from Rich Trumka, Malcolm Wallop, my fine senior colleague in those days, John Dingell, Tom Downey, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, Senator Gregg--a wonderful group of people--and 30 of the 32 of us have agreed and presented to the President the fact that in the year 2012, with no increase in taxes, that there would be only sufficient revenue to fund Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Federal retirement and interest on the national debt and that there will be nothing--absolutely nothing--to be used to fund transportation, education, defense, Head Start or NEA or any other discretionary program of the Federal Government, and everybody knows it. I would think the veterans would have picked up on it. Veterans are a bright group. They have powerful organizations in this community. But I must say, in my 16 years here, and having served as ranking member under a fine able chairman, Senator Al Cranston--people often confuse us and say, ``You're Al Cranston.'' ``No, I'm Al Simpson.'' I have to clear that up daily. Nobody ever calls him Al Simpson but many call me Al Cranston. But it was difficult. That was the only thing difficult in that relationship because I enjoyed him thoroughly. There is nobody I enjoy more than Jay Rockefeller. He is a splendid friend. I watched the chairman through the years, Senator Frank Murkowski, and the wonderful work that he has done, and on it goes. Always we get into this wretched excess about veterans: ``What are we doing for the veterans of our country?'' And the answer is everything. I am telling you, when I came to this body, the veterans budget was $20 billion in 1978, and today it is double--double, $39.5 billion proposed for 1996. And in 1978 it was $20 billion. It has doubled. And every year I have to come here and listen to what we are doing to the veterans of America. It is a tedious exercise, a truly tedious exercise. It comes from the veterans' groups. The organizations gin the rhetoric up all day long. The average increase for veterans is over $1 billion a year. When every other program in America is taking a hit, the veterans do not take a hit. They have not taken a hit in any way. We keep adding things. What we really tragically do is add new things in the Veterans' Affairs Committee and on the floor, because you do not dare vote against any kind of bill that has the word ``veteran'' in it. So we come here and we have voted for entitlement programs that we cannot fund, and then the veterans groups come back in and say, or the veterans themselves come back in and say, ``How come I couldn't get into the VA Hospital in Cheyenne or Miles City?'' Or ``Why couldn't I do this'' or ``Why couldn't I do that''? The answer is, ``Well, we didn't fund that.'' ``Well,'' they said, ``you should have funded it.'' So all I can tell you is that if anyone can tell me that the people of the United States, through their elected representatives, have not supported the veterans of America, that is plain erroneous information. I suppose we are going to have some charts about GDP and increases in this and or the increases in that. It is like dealing with Medicare. If you want to deal with another power group, other than the veterans organizations, deal with the AARP, who have managed to tell the American public that we have cut Medicare $200 billion in the last 10 years. Well, I would like to see that one on paper because Medicare was $37 billion 10 years ago, and it is now $157 billion. So if somebody can tell me where the $200 billion dropped off the table, just drop a fax or something or slip it under the door and I will be glad to read it if I can to see how $200 billion simply disappeared. It is absurd to say that the veterans have not been taken care of in some way. There is a terrible confusion here, a very unfortunate confusion, a fuzzing--unintentional, I am sure--about the difference between a combat disabled veteran and a service-connected disabled veteran. I know this may be inside baseball to some, but it is critical, very critical, because this well-intentioned amendment will do some serious things. You have to remember, as Senator Rockefeller says, those who enter service must know that their commitments will be met. Each Congress we have added to the benefits available to veterans--each year. Not a year has gone by in my presence as chairman or ranking member that additional presumptive diseases have not been added. I know that is inside baseball, too. People say, ``What is a presumptive disease?'' Well, there are now 86, I believe, presumptive diseases. Some of them obviously are connected with service in the U.S. military and the majority of them are simply connected with being alive: Ulcers, hypertension, stress, high blood pressure, the things that happen to every other person in society. If you have been in the military, they are presumed to have happened to you because of your service in the military. For example, the list includes lupus. I can get the list. It is an extraordinary list. Ninety-three presumptive diseases are called to my attention--93. If you saw the list you would see that it includes every malady--and some are serious and some are not as serious. But every malady on that list affects every other person in society. We do that every year. We have made additions to the cost-of-living allowance. We have every year increased accessibility for services and benefits, and benefits have been expanded in each and every year of my being here. Hear this: The argument is that we need to care for those injured as a result of their service. The amendment of my friend from West Virginia, by freezing benefits for many who are being paid for injuries or illness unrelated to their service, would impair the ability of a future Congress to respond to the needs of those actually harmed as a result of their service. This is, I am sure, a highly unintended consequence. Furthermore, Senator Mikulski--and she did a yeoman job as chairman of the HUD and VA subcommittee. She and Senator Jake Garn worked so well on that. She is a spirited advocate of the amendment. She cites many combat veterans. No one--please--no one, not a soul in the land questions our obligation to those injured in the performance of their duty. But this amendment goes far beyond that. This 19 percent of service-connected veterans with ordinary diseases unrelated to duty. There is a 19 percent cadre of people who I do not think were ever intended to be included here. It would include the 6 percent of service-connected vets who are injured off base in accidents unrelated to duty. I do not think that was ever intended. It is a remarkable, periodic thing that we go through here, and some of it is, believe it or not, politically motivated. I know that is a shocking statement. I am not attributing that here, but over the years I have attributed it because I can remember very well one time when I came to the floor of the U.S. Senate many years ago and there was a Senator--he is not in our midst, he is no longer in the Senate--who was railing about the veterans of America and how they have been cheated, short sheeted, ripped off, treated like bums. I have never heard a speech quite like it. It was a ringing thing. In fact, it is still ringing. Afterwards, we were riding the subway back and I said, ``I have a question to ask: Have you ever been in the service?'' And our colleague, now not with us, said, ``No.'' I said, ``How come it is that a person like you who has never been in the U.S. military will give a speech like that when you haven't even been in the Civil Air Patrol?'' I said, ``I get tired of that. And the next time you do it, I'm going to get out there and rip one, and we're not going to listen to that kind of stuff again.'' He said, ``You wouldn't do that. It would ruin the comity of the Senate.'' I said, ``Well, you are already ruining it by getting out and pretending we don't do anything for the veterans in the United States.'' That was 1979. That gentleman never spoke again on the issue of veterans because I just kept a big drawer full of the statistics about what we do for veterans in this country. People cannot understand that there are 27 million veterans, and only 3 million of us have ever had a live shell go past our head in combat. Now, they will say, ``Oh, we can't tell how many saw combat.'' Well, I say you could get pretty close. We have a form, a DD-214, that tells where you were, where you served. It is a great ploy to assert that you cannot tell where someone served or what they did. I do not believe that one anymore either. The VA does not want to provide that information because you can use the word ``veteran'' to cover, literally cover, people who served 6 months--6 months. There were thousands of veterans, when I came to the committee, who had served 6 months, never left the United States, and did not know a mortar tube from either end. They received every benefit this country had, and I said, ``This is absurd.'' And Al Cranston helped me change that. We at least put in a requirement for 2 years service, and I believe that is where we are now. So you can serve 2 years, never leave the United States, and not know a mortar tube from either end and still draw every single benefit that a disabled veteran or a veteran of combat receives. Now, people do not like to hear that, and they say, ``Simpson, you are not doing that again.'' I almost can feel my staff pulling on my clothing as I bring it up again. But it is true. And then I ask you to remember another one. This will get me in deep trouble. You can be a service-connected disabled veteran by busting up your knee playing special services basketball at Heidelberg, ladies and gentlemen. Hear that. Hear it. Because if I get to have horror stories used on me, then I get to throw the horror stories going the other way back into the box. You can really be a service-connected disabled veteran for hooking your knee over a bayonet stuck in a tree, saying, ``I want to draw a green check for the rest of my life.'' I saw a guy do that in the woods of Germany, and he said, ``I'm out of here, see you.'' I said, ``Boy, this is great. That's not what I had in mind when I put in my 2 years.'' He said, ``Well, that's what I have in mind.'' I do not know where that man is now. But just to believe that every single veteran is ``deserving of everything out of the Federal Treasury'' is to believe that every lawyer is deserving--I am one of those in life--or that every politician is wholly deserving, or that every person deserves a Federal check. That is not so. Veterans served, you bet they did, and with honor and distinction, and they sometimes fought, and, tragically, some were maimed and many died. Does anyone believe that we do not all know that, and have tremendous passion and compassion for what they did. How absurd to have to come and get into a debate and hear that some of us do not care about those veterans or for those who bore the battle and for their widows and orphans. Their service and sacrifice gave their children and their grandchildren a chance to live in freedom. But today, our country's future, and the freedom of our descendants, face threats that are every bit as dangerous as the foreign enemies that America's 27 million veterans defeated. The victories won by America's veterans in war will be lost in peace if our Nation is brought to her knees by the burden of our national debt. All of us know what we are doing. We will all vote on April 1, or thereabouts, to raise the debt limit to $5 trillion. Now, when we get the debt limit to $5 trillion and the interest on the national debt to $300-plus billion, you could do a lot of things for veterans with the $300-plus billion interest payment that will instead have to be sent down the rathole. You could do a lot of things for veterans with a $300 billion payment down the rathole as interest on the national debt. The budget this year is $1.6 trillion, and $40 billion of it is going to go to the veterans of America. And I have not the slightest qualm about that. I am ready to vote that. And the veterans will get to watch along with the rest of our American citizens as the deficit goes $200 billion a year out into eternity, but that is nothing, because in 1997 it will begin to go to $250 billion, and then it will go to $300 billion per year. I think the veterans' organizations would want to pay attention to that. And then the debt in the year 2003 will be $6.3 trillion. I think the veterans' organizations would really want to pay attention to that because, if our country goes belly up and we monetize the debt, veterans are going to get stuck along with everybody else, along with everybody on Social Security, along with the seniors and Head Start and everybody else. That is the way that works. If that happens, the sacrifice of service members who died or were wounded protecting the future of our country will have been in vain. Their service will have been absolutely in vain if the future of our country is dictated by the demands of an ever-increasing debt and deficit. And the commitment of the Congress and this country to care for those who bore the battle, their widows and orphans will count for nothing if the economy that supports all of the veterans' benefits collapses under the weight of the deficits we incur today. Does anyone believe that will not occur? If we continue business as usual, we continue to spend based on desires and pressure from the interest groups; rather than budget based upon our resources, the future is very clear and the outcome is inevitable. And I have described to you what will occur in the year 2012. And, of course, there is another fact to throw in the pot. The Social Security system will be broke in the year 2029. That nightmare is not just a vision of some mad Reagan supporter somewhere or Jimmy Carter or George Bush or anyone you wish to name who served our country with distinction as President. No. We are told that the system will go broke by the trustees of the Social Security system, who are not exactly off the wall. They are people like Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Reich, Donna Shalala, and two members of the general public. And they are saying that in the year 2029 the system will be broke. And they moved the doomsday up from 2036 to 2029 just last year. Next year, when they meet again, will they move the doomsday from 2029 down to 2025? I do not know. But those of us on the Finance Committee are asking those questions. People like Senator Moynihan are asking those questions. Senator Packwood, the chairman, is asking those questions. These are real issues, absolutely, totally real concerns. or whatever you have to do when you have a debt of $6 trillion, and you put Federal borrowing in short-term securities because the interest rate is less. When we have to roll over that short term debt, as the occupant of the chair knows so well, a one-point increase in the interest rate translates to, I think, $48 billion to 48--$48 billion; 1 point in the interest paid by the Government costs that much. So, when that happens we do not need to worry about little things like this amendment. When that happens, there will be no money to pay the salaries of VA employees who would process the benefits this amendment proposes to protect. There will be no money to pay the salaries of VA doctors or nurses to care for any nonservice-connected illness--any nonservice-connected illness. This is an important distinction. If any Senator offered any proposal to limit VA health care only to service-connected disabilities he would face the ultimate, immediate and undisguised wrath of the veterans organizations. But that would be the full effect of allowing the continued growth of the deficit. A Federal budget with no room for discretionary spending, I can assure you, will have no room for nonservice-connected health care-- believe me. It will not. Because, if you want to get into a description of nonservice-connected health care, there are some things in there that you really don't want to see. I thought the most interesting part of the debate, at least as some of the material has come out, is that I had a very pleasing letter from the Paralyzed Veterans of America. If we want to continue to talk about people who gave their all and do their all, then I think we would want to listen to the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Let me read this letter dated February 14, saying: On behalf of the Members of the Paralyzed Veterans of America I urge you to oppose an amendment, which we understand will be offered today by Senator Jay Rockefeller. Then they go on to describe, and I would certainly subscribe to the description also--they describe the amendment, as being ``motivated by a heartfelt desire to attempt to safeguard benefits and services.'' Boy, I believe that about my friend from West Virginia, that this is heartfelt. I subscribe to that and I believe that. But this attempt to do this--and again I am reading from the Paralyzed Veterans Association letter . . . will fragment veterans' programs and seriously weaken the veterans' health care system. By protecting only a portion of the funding needed to maintain the VA health care system, the future of the entire system could well be jeopardized. I believe that. The VA health care system, and particularly its specialized services such as spinal cord injury medicine, upon which the PVA members rely, will be faced with a drastically eroded patient base and diminished resources necessary for its continued existence. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON. What is the situation with regard to time?

Mr. SIMPSON. All time has expired?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I wonder if I might direct it to the Senator from West Virginia, through the Chair. If this amendment should be adopted, will my friend, the Senator from West Virginia, vote for the balanced budget amendment?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, may I ask a question, please?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, a balanced budget does not require a reduction in any benefit or program. It would require only a reduction in the rate of increase of entitlement spending. I commend those who desire to ensure that our Nation remembers her obligation to those who are injured as a result of their military service. But I urge them to remember that the best way to protect the future of veterans' benefits--is to protect the future of the Nation that provides those benefits. If we are serious about our obligation to veterans--we have to be serious about protecting economy that supports the benefits veterans receive. I have no fear for the strength and persistence of our Nation's commitment to veterans. I do fear for the ability of our Nation to convert that commitment into the reality of effective and enduring programs--unless we make a commitment to protect the future of our Nation, and the future of our economy, by bringing our appetite for debt under control. It is by happy coincidence that the Washington Post published on Tuesday, February 15, contains two columns illustrating my point. The first piece, by Robert J. Samuelson, provides one blueprint for balancing the budget. Samuelson's plan does not reduce veterans' benefits. I am sure there are many others. Thus, we can lay to rest the notion that balancing the budget must reduce veterans' benefits by 30 percent, or--for that matter--by any other percentage. The second piece, by James K. Glassman, reminds us that, if the Congress makes no change in spending and entitlement policy, future generations will face ``net lifetime tax rates'' that average 84 percent. Think about that. If we continue with business as usual, future generations will have to pay 84 percent of their net lifetime income--that's what's left after allowing for Government payments back to the taxpayers, to pay for this generation's spending. The source of Mr. Glassman's calculations? The President's budget for 1995. Does anyone doubt that such a taxation rate would bring down the economy, and the veterans' benefits that depend upon it? These articles are so illustrative of the point I am trying to make that I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record of this debate.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment is not a threat to veterans and their benefits. In fact, the balanced budget amendment may be the last and best opportunity we will have to protect the future economy upon which those benefits will depend. For that reason, for veterans, and for veterans' children, and for the grandchildren of veterans, I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting the integrity of the balanced budget amendment by opposing the well intentioned, but counterproductive, amendment of my friend from West Virginia

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, our colleague, Senator Paul Simon, will be honored tomorrow evening by the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service for his tireless devotion to the plight of refugees throughout the world. I want everyone to know how special this award is and how special Paul Simon is. Paul and I have worked together on the Immigration Subcommittee since he came to the Senate in 1985. He has become a dear friend. But Paul Simon is also a friend to the millions who suffer the devastation of tyranny and war. He is the unknown benefactor of the refugees who have found a safe haven on our shores. And he has been a benefactor of our Nation, for these refugees are a revitalizing force among us. We enjoy the warm glow of bipartisanship on our subcommittee, and we need it. The issue of immigration is political dynamite and must be dealt with fairly. Paul Simon has been a persistent voice of justice and compassion on the subcommittee. The Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service has served thousands of those new to our shores, and their award is an honor and a trust. Paul Simon has lived up to that trust. The Statue of Liberty enlightens the world, but her torch does not burn untended. Paul Simon has helped keep her lamp fueled and lit for America's newest immigrants. I am so pleased that Paul's hard work has been recognized with such an honor, and I know our colleagues share that pleasure.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to take a few brief moments of the Senate's time to acknowledge the recent retirement, on January 31, 1995, of Mr. C. Wayne Hawkins from Federal service. Mr. Hawkins most recently served as the Department of Veterans Affairs' Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Administration and Operations, capping a distinguished Federal career that spanned 37 years. As one of VA's two Deputy Under Secretaries for Health, Mr. Hawkins was the senior non-physician official in the VA's Veterans Health Administration [VHA], the VA organization of 171 hospitals, 353 outpatient clinics, 128 nursing home care units, and 37 domiciliaries. In this capacity, he served as Chief Operating Officer of VHA--an organization which provides health care services to over two million veterans per year, and which is the largest ``chain'' of health care facilities in the United States. Mr. Hawkins began his VA career in 1957 as a rehabilitation specialist at the Mountain Home VA Medical Center in Johnson City, TN. From that assignment, he progressed up the VA career ladder, becoming a personnel manager, then an Associate Director at a number of VA hospitals. Ultimately, he was appointed Director of the VA Medical Center in Dallas, TX, a post in which he served for 15 years before coming to Washington to serve as VHA's Deputy Under secretary. Under his steady leadership, the Dallas VA Medical Center became one of VA's flagship hospitals. Through it all, Mr. Hawkins also served in the military's active and reserve ranks, retiring as an Army colonel in 1987 after 33 years service. He also served in major leadership capacities in the Texas Hospital Association, the American Hospital Association, and the VA Chapter of the Senior Executive Association. In 1991, he was inducted as a fellow, American College of Health Care Executives. Mr. Hawkins received a B.S. degree in 1957 from East Tennessee State University, and an M.S. degree in 1971 in health care administration from the University of Minnesota. He completed graduate work in health systems management at Harvard University, and is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Among other honors, Mr. Hawkins is a recipient of VA's Distinguished Career Award, Presidential Rank Awards for Distinguished Executives and Meritorious Executives, the Ray E. Brown Award for Outstanding Accomplishment in Health Care Management, and numerous other Government, military and civilian awards for excellence in health care management. Mr. President, VA will truly miss this distinguished and visionary health care executive. We who care about veterans regret that he is retiring from a role of day to day management of VA's health care system. Gladly, Wayne Hawkins is not withdrawing completely from participation in veterans affairs and health care management, so we expect to reap the benefit of his experience, intelligence and integrity for many years to come.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, pursuant to paragraph 2 of rule XXVI, Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record the Rules of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for the 104th Congress, as adopted by the committee on February 1, 1995. The rules follow: Rules of Procedure of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs I. meetings (a) Unless otherwise ordered, the Committee shall meet on the first Wednesday of each month. The Chairman may, upon proper notice, call such additional meetings as he deems necessary. (b) Except as provided in subparagraphs (b) and (d) of paragraph 5 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, meetings of the Committee or a Subcommittee shall be open to the public. (c) The Chairman of the Committee or of a Subcommittee, or the Vice Chairman in the absence of the Chairman, or the Ranking Majority Member present in the absence of the Vice Chairman, shall preside at all meetings. (d) No meeting of the Committee or any Subcommittee shall be scheduled except by majority vote of the Committee or by authorization of the Chairman of the Committee. (e) The Committee shall notify the office designated by the Committee on Rules and Administration of the time, place, and purpose of each meeting. In the event such meeting is canceled, the Committee shall immediately notify such designated office. (f) Written notice of a Committee meeting, accompanied by an agenda enumerating the items of business to be considered, shall be sent to all Committee members at least 72 hours (not counting Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays) in advance of each meeting. In the event that the giving of such 72-hour notice is prevented by unforeseen requirements or Committee business, the Committee staff shall communicate notice by the quickest appropriate means to members or appropriate staff assistants of members and an agenda shall be furnished prior to the meeting. (g) Subject to the second sentence of this paragraph, it shall not be in order for the Committee to consider any amendment in the first degree proposed to any measure under consideration by the Committee unless a written copy of such amendment has been delivered to each member of the Committee at least 24 hours before the meeting at which the amendment is to be proposed. This paragraph may be waived by a majority vote of the members and shall apply only when 72-hour written notice has been provided in accordance with paragraph (f). ii. quorums (a) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b), seven members of the Committee and four members of a Subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for the reporting or approving of any measure or matter or recommendation. Four members of the Committee or Subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for purposes of transacting any other business. (b) In order to transact any business at a Committee or Subcommittee meeting, at least one member of the minority shall be present. If, at any meeting, business cannot be transacted because of the absence of such a member, the matter shall lay over for a calendar day. If the presence of a minority member is not then obtained, business may be transacted by the appropriate quorum. (c) One member shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of receiving testimony. iii. voting (a) Votes may be cast by proxy. A proxy may be written or oral, and may be conditioned by personal instructions. A proxy shall be valid only for the day given except that a written proxy may be valid for the period specified therein. (b) There shall be a complete record kept of all Committee action. Such record shall contain the vote cast by each member of the Committee on any question on which a rollcall vote is requested. iv. subcommittees (a) No member of the Committee may serve on more than two Subcommittees. No member of the Committee shall receive assignment to a second Subcommittee until all members of the Committee, in order of seniority, have chosen assignments to one Subcommittee. (b) The Committee Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member shall be ex officio nonvoting members of each Subcommittee of the Committee. (c) Subcommittees shall be considered de novo whenever there is a change in Committee Chairmanship and, in such event, Subcommittee seniority shall not necessarily apply. (d) Should a Subcommittee fail to report back to the Committee on any measure within a reasonable time, the Chairman may withdraw the measure from such Subcommittee and so notify the Committee for its disposition. v. hearings and hearing procedures (a) Except as specifically otherwise provided, the rules governing meetings shall govern hearings. (b) At least 1 week in advance of the date of any hearing, the Committee or a Subcommittee shall undertake, consistent with the provisons of paragraph 4 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, to make public announcement of the date, place, time, and subject matter of such hearing. (c) The Committee or a Subcommittee shall require each witness who is scheduled to testify at any hearing to file 40 copies of such witness' testimony with the Committee not later than 48 hours prior to the witness' scheduled appearance unless the Chairman and Ranking Minority member determine there is good cause for failure to do so. (d) The presiding officer at any hearing is authorized to limit the time allotted to each witness appearing before the Committee or Subcommittee. (e) The Chairman, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, is authorized to subpoena the attendance of witnesses and the production of memoranda, documents, records, and any other materials. If the Chairman or a Committee staff member designated by the Chairman has not received from the Ranking Minority member or a Committee staff member designated by the Ranking Minority member notice of the Ranking Minority Member's nonconcurrence in the subpoena within 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays) of being notified of the Chairman's intention to subpoena attendance or production, the Chairman is authorized following the end of the 48-hour period involved to subpoena the same without the Ranking Minority Member's concurrence. Regardless of whether a subpoena has been concurred in by the Ranking Minority member, such subpoena may be authorized by vote of the members of the Committee. When the Committee or Chairman authorizes a subpoena, the subpoena may be issued upon the signature of the Chairman or of any other member of the Committee designated by the Chairman. (f) Witnesses at hearings will be required to give testimony under oath whenever the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member deems such to be advisable. At any hearing to confirm a Presidential nomination, the testimony of the nominee and, at the request of any member, any other witness shall be under oath. vi. media coverage Any Committee or Subcommittee meeting or hearing which is open to the public may be covered by television, radio, and print media. Photographers, reporters, and crew members using mechanical recording, filming, or broadcasting devices shall position and use their equipment so as not to interfere with the seating, vision, or hearing of the Committee members or staff or with the orderly conduct of the meeting or hearing. The presiding member of the meeting or hearing may for good cause terminate, in whole or in part, the use of such mechanical devices or take such other action as the circumstances and the orderly conduct of the meeting or hearing may warrant. All applicable requirements of the Standing Rules of the Senate shall govern the Committee and its Subcommittees. viii. presidential nominations Each Presidential nominee whose nomination is subject to Senate confirmation and referred to this Committee shall submit a statement of his or her background and financial interests, including the financial interests of his or her spouse and of children living in the nominee's household, on a form approved by the Committee which shall be sworn to as to its completeness and accuracy. The Committee form shall be in two parts-- (A) information concerning employment, education, and background of the nominee which generally relates to the position to which the individual is nominated, and which is to be made public; and (B) information concerning the financial and other background of the nominee, to be made public when the Committee determines that such information bears directly on the nominee's qualifications to hold the position to which the individual is nominated. Committee action on a nomination, including hearings or a meeting to consider a motion to recommend confirmation, shall not be initiated until at least five days after the nominee submits the form required by this rule unless the Chairman, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, waives this waiting period. ix. naming of department of veterans affairs facilities It is the policy of the Committee that no Department of Veterans Affairs facility shall be named after any individual unless-- (A) such individual is deceased and was-- (1) a veteran who (i) was instrumental in the construction or the operation of the facility to be named, or (ii) was a recipient of the Medal of Honor or, as determined by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, otherwise performed military service of an extraordinarily distinguished character; (2) a member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate who had a direct association with such facility; (3) an Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, a Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a Secretary of Defense or of a service branch, or a military or other Federal civilian official of comparable or higher rank; or (4) an individual who, as determined by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, performed outstanding service for veterans; (B) each member of the Congressional delegation representing the State in which the designated facility is located has indicated in writing such member's support of the proposal to name such facility after such individual; and (C) the pertinent State department or chapter of each Congressionally chartered veterans' organization having a national membership of at least 500,000 has indicated in writing its support of such proposal. x. amendments to the rules The rules of the Committee may be changed, modified, amended, or suspended at any time, provided, however, that no less than a majority of the entire membership so determine at a regular meeting with due notice, or at a meeting specifically called for that purpose. The rules governing quorums for reporting legislative matters shall govern rules changes, modification, amendments, or suspension.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Education, Arts, and Humanities be authorized to meet for a hearing on Education's Impact on Economic Competitiveness, during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 2, 1995 at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 2, 1995, at 2 p.m. to hold a nomination hearing for Dr. Martin S. Indyk, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador to Israel.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee for authority to meet on Thursday, February 2, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on the subject: Reinventing Government II: Information Management Systems in the Federal Government.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10 a.m. on Thursday, February 2, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony on the foundations of U.S. national strategy.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet Thursday, February 2, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing on whether U.S. personal savings can be increased by targeted incentives.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want to speak on behalf of Senate Joint Resolution 1, the resolution to provide for the ratification of the balanced budget amendment. I want to commend Senator Hatch for his extraordinary work and patience in regard to this measure. And also Senator Simon, Senator Heflin, Senator Thurmond, and back through the years, Senator DeConcini. So many of us have worked for so long on this measure. There are really no other questions to ask about this measure. We have asked them all. We have heard every hypothetical, every argument, every horror story. Everything that could possibly be laid out would fill the Chamber to the seals on the ceiling. Recently, the President, working with the then Democratic majority in both Chambers of Congress, passed the latest in a series of deficit reduction plans. We have heard reference to that. We did the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, or OBRA, and it was supposed to shave $500 billion off of the Federal deficit over the next 5 years. This, of course, was $500 billion in ``deficit reduction,'' as defined in the exceedingly perverse language employed only here in Washington. Mind you, this meant not that deficits would be $500 billion lower, or that the total debt would be ``reduced''; it meant that rising deficits would cumulatively amount to $500 billion less than some esoteric, abstract figure which only Washington policymakers seem to understand, and it is quaintly called ``the baseline.'' The ``baseline,'' of course, is everchanging. Lord only knows how the baseline is properly figured, but its chief function seems to be as a device of consolation for the poor, beleaguered American taxpayer. Debt continues to compound and annual deficits are projected still to skyrocket. But, take heart, ye of the faithful, unwashed taxpayers, there was an even worse scenario out there for you called ``the baseline.'' Thank heavens we have all done better than that, and the public is then assured that all is well. Mr. President, all is not well, and all will not be well until this situation is brought under control with finality. The 1993 budget was only the latest in a long series of similarly hyped budget procedures. Both parties and all Presidents have been so good at it. 1990 was the last one before that, and I voted for that one. We have been passing deficit reduction acts around here for as long as I can recall, and the numbers are always off. They never match; they are never right. Five years later, there was always some dramatic thing that skewed the numbers. Time and again, they have failed to resolve this situation once and for all. Why is that? One reason and one reason only: Each one of them has failed to deal with the fundamental problem of the entitlement spending explosion. The 1993 Budget Act most certainly failed to do that. President Clinton proposed only modest reforms in Medicare, and he had to face down a revolt from his own liberal wing and remove even those slight changes in order to pass his Budget Act and leave that spending to grow on, unabated, unrestricted. All the while, Congress was debating a huge new entitlement in the form of the Health Security Act. What is the latest verdict on the 1993 Budget Act? Where are we heading now that we have passed this landmark legislation? The CBO has just reexamined the entire Federal budget outlook, and here is what they find: In fiscal year 1994, the annual deficit amounted to $202 billion. In fiscal year 1995, they project that figure will shrink to $176 billion, and there is joy in the streets with regard to that figure--at least more joy on the other side of the aisle than here, because that does not mean we now will owe less money as a Nation; it is $176 billion more in debt that future taxpayers will have to pay off, but it would represent slightly less than we added in fiscal year 1994. Where do we go from here? In fiscal year 1996, the CBO tells us the annual deficit will again be back up to $207 billion--more than either of the 1995 or 1994 figures--and it keeps going up after that. We all know it and we talk about the figures on the floor. It will go up to $253 billion in fiscal year 1999, and we all know it. Not only do hundreds of billions in debts stand to be added to posterity's burden every year, but we stand to add to that debt still more quickly--not at some distant, far-flung date, but next year, 1996, according to CBO, is when annual deficits begin to skyrocket again. Mr. President, the 1993 Budget Act affected no fiscal years earlier than 1994. This is progress? Skyrocketing annual deficits are still projected for as far as the eye can see beginning next year. I can personally tell you that the long-term picture is much, much worse than that. I had the ``honor''--and I put that in quotation marks--to participate in the collective suicide mission that was known as the President's Bipartisan Entitlement Commission, or the Kerrey-Danforth commission, named after its tireless chairman and vice chairman. If you want to know what will happen to this country in the next century, in the next 25 years, the next 50 years, get a copy of our report. There were more than several Senators people, Democrats and Republicans alike. Get a copy of the report that was released last Friday. It lays it all out in vivid, full-color graphs. The Senators involved on the entitlements commission were Senators Kerrey, Danforth, Moynihan, Sasser, Moseley-Braun, Reid, Bumpers, Domenici, Gregg, Cochran, Wallop, and myself. We all were involved. See our work product. See that 30 of the 32 of us agreed that in the year 2012, even with no new spending initiatives and with no increase in taxes, there will be only sufficient funds to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal retirement, the other entitlement programs, and interest on the national debt; and there will be nothing--nothing--for defense, transportation, education, WIC, WIN, Head Start, NEA, NEH, or any other discretionary program of the Federal Government. Zap. Nothing. We all know that, too. At least 30 of 32 of us who sat for nearly a year know that. I would think our colleagues would want to listen to what we presented. But I favor the balanced budget amendment because I just simply think it is ``shock therapy.'' There is no other purpose for it. It is to force us to confront the real components of the Government's spending problem. The opponents of the balanced budget amendment say it is not needed, that all is needed is for Congress to ``screw up'' its collective courage to pass legislation curbing rising deficits. That is an appropriate, I think, two-word description of what we have been doing with regard to the budget for years. I know all too well what happens when you try to do that. You get exactly the sort of hysterical propaganda that is currently being hauled out in bales by the metric ton in opposition to the balanced budget amendment. Phrases ring through the Chamber: ``Tell us how you are going to take food away from starving seniors and hungry children,'' they say. Spell it out to us. When you try to explain that you are only talking about more modest increases in Government spending, you are lost and they are lost. And then they unleash on you. We have not proposed a ``cut'' of anything in Social Security. We have not proposed a ``cut'' of anything in Medicare, or a ``cut'' in Medicaid. We are just trying to slow the growth. Apparently, it is still not being heard. So if Medicare is going up 9 percent, we say let us let it go up only 6 percent, and it is described to the American people as a ``cut.'' It is a sad day for the use of the English language and a true distortion of what is being said. A 6-percent increase is not a cut. And it is sad to watch that continual description over the media and in this Chamber about cuts when all you are trying to do, and we all are trying to do, is limit the increase in growth. Not a cut in a carload. In short, Federal budget policy debates are eternally paralyzed around this place because the real issues are obscured in a haze of misleading anecdotes, rhetoric, and carefully crafted statistics. Just try to come down to the floor, as I say, and suggest that this year we are going to let Medicare go up only 8 or 6 percent instead of the 10 or 9 percent projected. Broadsides will be fired all across the country saying that you are planning brutal cuts in Medicare. How could you-- choke, gasp, sob--do such things? Why should you make such a heartless proposal anyway? Why not just cut foreign aid, or raise taxes on the rich, or get rid of the tse-tse fly study? That is a marvelous thing, if we could just get rid of the tse-tse fly study. It is only 100,000 bucks. Or get rid of the highway demonstration projects. Try that one, at least in the House. They used to try it. That is like pulling teeth with no anesthetic. Or, of course, if we get rid of the restoration of Lawrence Welk's house, that would do it. If we could only end that sort of thing. Or congressional pay raises and we should look at that, indeed. And we never did one of those here in all my time here while in the dark. The last one which was reported to the American public by the media was that we voted in the middle of the night for a pay raise. I think it was about 9:45 in the evening and everybody was here and everybody voted ``yes'' or ``no.'' I do not think that is too much of a secret endeavor. And anybody can go look and see how anybody voted. We do not do it that way. Well, maybe get rid of the franking privilege. That's it. That would solve all our problems. Or just simply abolish waste, fraud, and abuse. Oh, if we all did that, there would be no problem. Well, so long as Congress is not forced to actually balance its books, it will be possible to survive politically--and there is the key, ladies and gentleman--while pandering to every public misconception there is about the structure of the Federal budget. I have served our party as assistant leader for some 10 years. And I commend my successor. He is doing a splendid job. I am proud of him, my friend, Senator Trent Lott. And, as an aside here, let me tell you why I am going to vote for term limits, so that you may hear. Of course, I was not for it when I was running for my third term, but that is another story! But I can tell you, I will vote for that and I will tell you why. I cannot tell you how often--about once a month--in my duties I would say, ``We need your vote. It is a very critical vote for the Nation's best interest. We need it.'' And they would say, ``I know it is a critically important vote and we do need it, but I cannot vote for it because if I do I will be history. I will be gone. I will not get reelected.'' And I would say, ``So this is your sole reason for not voting for this amendment or this bill, is that you will not get reelected?'' And they would say, ``You got it.'' And so I say, nothing would be better than the term limits legislation, because once it kicked in, one-third of this body would be voting right. One third of these Senators would vote right. And then, in the duties of the leadership, all you would have to do is go find 18 other people out of that pool of about 40 who always cast the tough votes. There are a group of about 40 in here, Democrat and Republican alike, who often cast the tough votes, consistent tough votes. Do term limits, then you would have a third of them doing it right. They would be unshackled and you then go dig up 18 more and you have your 51 to pass an issue. It would change this body immensely. So I certainly look forward to the day when the Congress actually has to balance the books as would be required by the Constitution of the United States and as required in constitutions of other States. And I said before and say again, it would be ``shock therapy.'' And I would relish it. Because everyone who has been making a lifetime career of running against foreign aid or for increased taxes on the rich or always prattling about class warfare and why cannot we just do what we were hired on to do--let us check them out in the old hypocrisy index. The index hurt a lot of them in the last cycle. It scored up how much they talked about cutting and how they actually voted, especially and solely on spending. We all do it. I do it. We all do it. Look at our votes. One man's junk is another man's treasure; some pet project, some massive public works. We all do it. Every single one of us do it. And so, if we would do those things, we would see those people exposed in one fell swoop. They will then be bound to the Constitution with hoops of steel to balance the books, and when they come out with a proposal to eliminate the 1 percent of the budget that goes to foreign aid--1 percent--that just will not get the job done, and they will be forced to come back and try again. Or they will say, let us raise those taxes on ``the rich,'' and they will get about a half inch closer to solving the problem that way and once more they will have to try again. I have a certain perverse strain in my nature. When people at a town meeting say, ``Why don't you just nail the rich and we could seal this hole and make progress?'' I say, ``No, no. Let's not increase their taxes. Let's take everything they've got. Why mess around? Let's take every stock certificate, every ranch, every yacht, every piece of property. Let's take it all. Let's take every debenture. Let's take all the big family money in America, all the Wal-Marts, all of this, all of that.'' Guess what? It would be about $800 billion and that would run the country for 6 months--$800 billion would run the United States for about 6 months. 500, the Forbes list, the whole works. Take it all, $750 billion or $800 billion, and yet the budget this year is $1.506 trillion. Not a very good idea then, but it sounds so good. Certainly, just as there are today, there will be those who will win elections by uttering such platitudes, and in today's process, they can still go back to the electorate the next time around and say, ``Well, we failed to balance the budget because the Congress didn't adopt my wisdom. We aren't taxing the rich enough, we did not cut foreign aid.'' And there are still some to cut out there. I saw it myself. ``There is $15 billion out there, folks,'' and they all get glandular reactions from that. But $15 billion will not get you there because the budget is $1.506 trillion. And who is the wiser in that process? But with this amendment, this courageous amendment, the American public will become educated in a real hurry about where and how the Government spends its money, and I am greatly looking forward to the anguish connected to it all. No wonder it is opposed by every special interest group whose job it is to drain the Federal Treasury. Their executive directors are paid to horrify the membership to get them all worked up, to be sure that they earn their salary, to be sure the letters come cranking in, without regard to the burden placed on future taxpayers. Do you really think that the AARP--the American Association of Retired Persons--really wants the people of the United States, or even their membership, to really find out that you cannot enact their $1.3 trillion--get this figure, $1.3 trillion--agenda and balance the books at the same time? Hear me. This is a report from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation of April 28, 1993. The next time you go to a town meeting and the AARP is out there--and let us remember who they are--there are 33 million of them who pay 8 bucks dues and they are bound together by a common love of airline discounts, and automobile discounts and pharmacy discounts. Do their members know what their agenda is, ladies and gentlemen? Their agenda is this: Long-term health care for everyone in the United States, regardless of their net worth or their income. Ring that one up. Universal long-term health care, regardless of wealth. That is $60 billion over 10 years. Second, expand Medicaid to cover all below poverty, $35.7 billion over 10 years. Catastrophic care, $15.8 billion. Medicare to cover ``near elderly''--I suppose those are people that fall into the 45-year-old category, because that is only 5 years below the admission date of your ``elderly'' age to get into the AARP; members only have to be 50, so I suppose ``near elderly'' is defined as one 45 years old--that is $10 billion. Expanded Medicaid long-term care, $7.3 billion. Changes in Social Security benefit formulas, $19.1 billion. Expansions in earned income credit, $15.2 billion. Expansions of SSI, $7.7 billion. Housing assistance for all who qualify, $34.6 billion. So the next time Members are getting in a little scrap from the old AARP, and they are out there with signs and posters, ask them if they have any grandchildren, first. That will get a rise out of them. Then ask them how we are supposed to pay $1.3 trillion for the next 10 years to take care of their agenda they tell their Members about in their magazine that looks like a clone of the Smithsonian magazine. Ask them. I imagine my mail will pick up when I return to my chamber. There will probably be a little bit of light anecdotal material like, ``You rotten--.'' I do not know what it will be, but it will be heavy, and it will come from AARP members who do not know one thing about their membership asking this Treasury to cough up 1.3 trillion bucks in the next 10 years for people, regardless of their net worth or income. Some of it is not ``affluence tested.'' We ought to affluence test it all. I want to be very clear. I am not talking about people who are poor. I am not talking about seniors who have no proper nutrition. I am not talking about Meals on Wheels. I am not talking about Green Thumb. I am talking about people who, to some, the cost of living index and the cost of living allowance is the cost of ``living it up.'' One of the saddest things--the saddest thing--that I saw in the entitlements commission was where a young man came and testified with a young people's advocacy group. Boy, young people better start paying attention here. These young people came and testified, one young man with sadness, said that he visited his grandfather in Florida, and he loved his grandfather dearly. And the COLA, cost-of-living-allowance-- to his grandfather, who was a lovely man and had done well in life, was whether he would be able to upgrade his country club membership. Ladies and gentlemen, that is not what a COLA is for. A cost-of-living- allowance is something to take care of someone who is truly needing that. We are going to have to start affluence testing the COLA's. We are not talking about cutting a single cent from a Social Security benefit. Hear that one. I do not want to hear any more of that babble. Nobody here except one group, which I believe is a remarkable group, including our former friends from the Senate, Paul Tsongas and Warren Rudman, have suggested affluence testing of the benefits. I have not subscribed to that. But we are certainly going to subscribe to affluence testing of the COLA's or we will not make it, because they range between $7 billion to $22 billion a year, depending on the Consumer Price Index, the CPI. Unless we breathe reality into that index, we will not make it, either. It is distorted. It needs correction. It still has a commodity designation in it called typewriters. It is not even current. Well, I could go on, and Members are thinking, ``He is going to.'' But I will say this. This is a tremendous challenge. The House has taken up the burden. They secured 300 votes. We in the Senate should pay careful attention. Let me conclude with what should be obvious to all Members, if not so already, is that the struggle is between those who are seeking to keep this amendment in a form that can pass this Congress, and those who will find every single indirect means to bring it crashing down. I applaud the distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], the very able, venerable conscience of the Senate, for his forthrightness and courage in opposing the balanced budget amendment. Subterfuges are not for him. Deception and chicanery are not his tools. He is right out front. He openly declares his opposition to this amendment, honestly lays himself out to the judgment of his constituents, makes his argument, and states his reasons for opposition as his means of fighting hard against the passage of the amendment. But it is my view that the greatest danger comes from those who will be tripped up in supporting, with all good intention, any number of amendments that will be offered as a means of peeling away the two- thirds majority support that the amendment must have. Members will see those. And the House protected itself against those carve-outs. Make no mistake: We will kill the balanced budget amendment if we pass any modification that will leave us with a resolution where we cannot secure the necessary two-thirds in both the Senate and the House and we must not do that. Let me put it quite bluntly: A vote to exempt Social Security from the balanced budget amendment is a vote to kill the balanced budget amendment; a vote to include a tax limitation is a vote to kill the balanced budget amendment. I am not talking about motives here. I am speaking of the serious practical effects. That is what will happen if these modifications pass. A vote to create a capital budget is a vote to kill the balanced budget amendment. Those issues have been tested, fought over already in the House, and in the Senate for years in the Judiciary Committee. We want to send the balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. We need to keep it in a form we know to have the requisite support. Every supporter of the balanced budget amendment needs to clearly understand this, as there is little margin for error at this stage of the game. To those who assert that the balanced budget amendment would impose a terribly unfair burden on individual States as the Federal Government pares down its spending, I make two completed action on the unfunded mandates legislation. This is the best ever protection of its kind for State budgets. Second, it seems to me that the States are in the best position to decide that, after all, and this must be ratified by the States; three-fourths of them have to decide that they want this. They are far better custodians of their own interests than we could ever be. So, Mr. President, I look forward to vigorous and healthy debate. I think we have begun this on this issue of central importance to our country. I have great enthusiasm for this one, albeit a bit of a personal stake. I personally assumed the ill-advised and totally politically incorrect responsibility of charting out just how I would get this country's fiscal house in order during the coming decades. It is enclosed with the Entitlements Commission report. Members may ask me for a copy, and I shall send it to Members in a brown, unmarked envelope so Members need not know that we are really proposing some dramatic things. No one will know Members received it. And there is nothing I would enjoy more than some added company in the suicide mission, however involuntarily compelled. I seek your assistance if this earnest effort. I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a most distinguished public servant who is retiring this month after nearly 33 years of Federal service. Phil Holman, the Director of the Division of Policy and Analysis in the Office of Refugee Resettlement is a man that I and my fine staff on the Immigration Subcommittee have worked with for many years. Phil Holman joined the Cuban Refugees Program in 1962, shortly after it was established by President Kennedy. He spent virtually his entire Federal career in the refugee resettlement program: from the early 1960's Cuban refugee flow beginnings to the 1975 Indochinese Refugee Assistance Program to the current domestic program established under the Refugee Act of 1980. Phil Holman's career has certainly come full circle as we struggle today with the current Cuban migration crisis. Millions of refugees admitted to the United States in the past 33 years have had their new lives touched in some way by Phil Holman's work. His decades of service are deeply appreciated, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in expressing our gratitude for a fine job well done.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend and predecessor as chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing a Joint resolution which would recognize the service and dedication of America's former prisoners of war [POW's]. The Joint resolution would designate April 9, 1995, and April 9, 1996, as ``National Former Prisoner of War Recognition day.'' April 9 is the anniversary of the fall of Bataan in 1942. On that day more Americans became POW's than any other day in our history. Every American who dons the uniform of our country makes a unique commitment of service and duty to our country and to our fellow citizens. Many factors, some as random as fate itself, determine how that commitment will be realized. For some, military service may be little more than an office job here in the United States. For others, military service can combine bitter privation with the agony of combat. Perhaps no American veterans have been called upon to honor their commitment to our country under circumstances more difficult than those endured by our former POW's. Former prisoners of war have seen combat. By definition they were close enough to the enemy to be captured; frequently after being wounded, shot down, or sunk by enemy action. But for them, the war didn't end when they were taken by the enemy, it was just beginning. At the worst, their experience was one of malnutrition, torture, and nonexistent medical care, combined with the burden of watching comrades die as fellow slave laborers while working under conditions that would make the worst villain of a Dickens novel look like a philanthropist. Even under the best possible conditions, the POW experience places American service members in the position of being dependent upon our nation's enemies for every scrap of food, every bandage, every human need. In such circumstances, the reward for treason, or even cooperation, is high. The penalty for resistance and loyalty is immediate, frequently painful and sometimes fatal. This resolution recognizes the sacrifice and loyalty of the POW's who maintained their commitment of service to our country. In so doing, it helps fulfill the duty we have to former POW's. A duty derived from the faithful discharge of their duty to us. Mr. President, in this century 142,257 American servicemembers have become POW's. For over 17,000 of them, the experience was fatal. They died while in the hands of our enemies. Of the 125,202 who returned to our shores, only about 62,000 remain alive today. This Joint resolution commemorates the service of former POW's who sustained their commitment to our country under circumstances that few of us can imagine, and none would willingly endure. I ask this body to honor the memory of those who have already died; I urge the Senate to express its gratitude to those still alive; and I call upon my colleagues to join with Senator Rockefeller, members of the committee on Veterans' Affairs, and myself in sponsoring this Joint resolution.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which will provide the Immigration Service with some badly needed tools to further the goal of achieving control over immigration. The bill will also reduce the abuse of the public welfare system by immigrants. For years, as chairman or ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee, I have advocated strong measures to control illegal immigration so that we can maintain a legal immigration program that will have the support of the American people. This legislation will continue that effort by authorizing additional Border Patrol officers and an increase in the personnel who investigate alien smuggling and the hiring of unlawful aliens. Most important, the bill will provide enable the Immigration Service, and employers, to verify the work authority of new hires. The system will also verify the eligibility of applicants for public assistance. Alien smuggling has become a serious and growing problem. This measure will provide new authority to the Justice Department to assist them in combating what the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has referred to as a ``modern day slave trade.'' The manufacture and use of fraudulent documents has reached such proportions that one can obtain high quality Social Security cards, driver's licenses, voter registration cards, or whatever, simply by placing a morning order on a Los Angeles street corner and picking up the documents later that day for less than $100. My legislation will increase the penalty for such document fraud. It will also provide new penalties for false statements in documents required by the Immigration Service. To combat the abuse of our immigration laws by persons who arrive at our ports-of-entry with no documents, or with fraudulent documents, the bill will provide for the expedited exclusion of such aliens. To more effectively remove persons found to be unlawfully in the United States, the bill will streamline our deportation proceedings. In recent months we have seen the Attorney General's parole authority being used to admit groups of persons for permanent residence in the United States. This is an abuse of the spirit, if not the letter, of the law allowing the Attorney General to parole aliens into the United States in certain circumstances. This bill will limit the use of parole authority to individual cases for humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, and will require that the number of parolees who remain more than a year must be offset by a reduction in regular immigration. In recent years many unlawful aliens have discovered the key to extending their stay in the United States. By claiming fear of political persecution at home, they are able to delay their departure for years as they remain here and work while awaiting their hearing. There are over 400,000 persons in the backlog of such asylum claimants. This legislation will make clear that asylum claimants are not necessarily entitled to work authority, and it will provide increased resources for addressing the asylum application backlogs. The Refugee Act, passed nearly 15 years ago, set the ``normal flow'' of refugees to be resettled in the United States at 50,000 per year. But the number of refugees resettled here in those 15 years has exceeded that number by hundreds of thousands. Every single year since the Refugee Act passed in 1980 refugee admissions have far exceeded the ``normal flow.'' This legislation will require congressional approval for the admission of more than 50,000 refugees in a fiscal year--except in a refugee emergency. Thirty years ago, in order to provide a legal status for the hundreds of thousands of Cubans who had fled Cuba after Castro's Communist intentions became clear, Congress passed the Cuban Adjustment Act. This allowed those Cubans who had fled the island in the 1960's to adjust to permanent resident status after 1 year in the United States. The persons for whom this extraordinary legislation was enacted have long since regularized their status in the United States. Yet, the Cuban Adjustment Act remains on the books as an anachronism that is both unfair and unnecessary. While nearly 4 million persons await their immigration visas in our vast immigration backlogs, some for as long as 20 years, any Cuban who gets to the United States, legally or illegally, can get a green card after 1 year. This special treatment is no longer justifiable and is not right. This bill will repeal the Cuban Adjustment Act. It has been the tradition of the United States for more than 100 years that newcomers to this country should be self-sufficient. Our laws have long provided that those persons who are ``likely at any time to become a public charge'' are inadmissible, and that those immigrants who later do become ``public charges'' are deportable. These provisions have proven to be unenforced, or unenforceable. This legislation will make clear that an American resident or citizen who sponsors his or her relatives will be financially responsible for them until they become citizens. The bill also makes clear that those immigrants who do become ``public charges'' become deportable. My bill will not deny legal immigrants access to our public welfare system--the safety net will be there--but those immigrants who become dependent upon public assistance will run the risk of deportation. Under this legislation any immigrant who receives public assistance for more than 12 months will be deportable. Illegal immigrants will be denied all public assistance except certain emergency and child health and nutrition benefits. Finally, this bill will impose a border crossing users fee to help offset the cost of maintaining our border controls. This fee will raise moneys that can be used to improve our border crossing facilities and deter the entry of unlawful aliens. There will be other comprehensive legislation introduced in the Senate. And I understand the Clinton administration is working on their own legislative package on immigration reform. I intend the legislation I introduced today to be the basis for hearings at which we will consider all other responsible proposals. The Commission on Immigration Reform has provided as with serious and thoughtful recommendations. Those that were not already in legislation I introduced in the last Congress, I have included in this legislation, such as a new system to verify eligibility to work in the United States. This bill also follows the Commission's recommendation for an enforceable contract of support, signed by the person in this country who sponsors any immigrant relative for immigration to the United States. This will require such a sponsor to reimburse governments which provide the immigrant with welfare or other assistance. The bill I introduce today focuses on illegal immigration control issues. Our legal immigration program is also in need of thoughtful reform and revision. I am presently drafting the legislation to accomplish these needed reforms. I understand the Commission on Immigration Reform will present us with their recommendations on legal immigration reform in the early spring. I look forward to those. To be sustainable, immigration must always serve the national interest. We must be able to assure the American people that whatever other goals our immigration policy may further, its overriding goal is to serve the long-term interest of the majority of our citizens. We have much to do on immigration reform. The election last November demonstrated clearly that the American people wish us to ``get on with the job.'' This bill I introduce today is the first step and other serious steps will soon follow.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I might speak in morning business for not to exceed 10 minutes.

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, if urgent work comes up on behalf of the managers, I will step aside. But I just want to make some brief comments about a fascinating activity observed here by me on the Senate floor for these past several days. I noted this with some whimsy, because I recall that after the November election returns there was a great deal of speculation as to how the minority party would act, now, in its wake. What would the President now try to do to, say, out-Republican the Republicans? Would the Democrats hop on board the Republican train or would they lie down on the tracks? Interesting questions, all of them. Questions were also asked about how the Republicans would deal with having the majority. Would the House Republicans provide for a more open process, more consideration of minority views, or would they resort to the same ramrod tactics that the Democrats employed with some apparent relish, at least as I have observed it for 16 of the past 40 years? Somehow lost to the media amid all of this questioning is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats as to how, really, willing the two parties are to be on record, to have their votes scrutinized, and to be held up to the folks back home. Anyone who has watched the proceedings here in the Senate or the House the last several years has witnessed the strain and the energy that the Democratic Party has had to employ to avoid being put on record on any number of sensitive issues. Let me just cite a few examples I could not help but think of. When we had the pullout from Somalia, and that was considered, the House Rules Committee attempted to protect the Democrats by adopting a ``King of the Hill'' rule. You remember that one--the rule that enables you to vote for one pullout date and then immediately following another one, a different one that supersedes it. We have another name for those. The Democrats seem to truly, truly enjoy those ``CYA'' amendments, one after another, so you can send the press release home, still having not done anything, but cover yourself nicely. Then you remember the balanced budget amendment. Do you remember that one? We had enough cosponsors to pass that one last time around. But every manner of contortion was used to enable the Democratic sponsors of the balanced budget amendment to find some reason to vote against the balanced budget amendment which they had cosponsored--a little bit of hypocrisy; just a touch. I think we recall the vexations facing the House Rules Committee last year when they were confronted with health care legislation of the type which the Republicans favored more than did the President. They had to keep it from getting to the House floor because they knew it would pass. You name the issue--whether it is the death penalty, gun control, term limits, balanced budget--the list is endless. And the struggle in this Chamber for years has been between Republicans trying to force votes on these issues and the Democrats attempting to prevent them, with all sorts of rationale, all thinly veiled, and all of that veil remarkably pierced on November 8. So the Democrats would shriek ``gridlock'' when we would introduce one of these amendments for Senate consideration. But it was nothing of the sort. Those bills favored by the majority--virtually every one of them--did eventually pass but not before Senators had put themselves on record on a number of issues. Finally, all the chickens came home to roost in November. Finally voters across the country realized that the man or woman they had sent to Washington really did not believe in the death penalty after all, did not really believe in lower taxes, did not really believe in spending cuts, did not really support the balanced budget amendment, and they sent them all packing. Why do I review this litany of activity? Because it is highly relevant to the situation we find ourselves in and found ourselves in this past week. I found in speaking to my Republican colleagues on the House and Senate side that the question has come up as to how open and inclusive our legislative process should be. Invariably, the answer has been, ``Of course. Of course, we can keep it as open as is humanly possible because unlike the previous Democratic overlords of years past, we have precious little to fear from the Democrats forcing votes on various issues. What can they possibly make us vote on that we are less willing to confront than are the Democrats? Where, precisely, are we out of step with the body politic, while they are in step, especially with our constituents?'' Put that way, it becomes clear that the Republican majority have precious little to fear from the various stonewalling tactics from the other side. So I personally, having watched the Democratic minority at work here, am not in the least troubled by this remarkable strategy. It has deprived me of some light rest, but not of any certainty that we in the majority will prevail. In fact, I wonder with which political consultants they are working? Has benefit to be gained from trying to block the unfunded mandates legislation, congressional accountability legislation, and the balanced budget amendment, or any one of a host of measures so eagerly awaited by the American public? If my Democratic friends wish to be shown to be on the wrong side of those issues, while at the same time pretending to support them, by all means I would hope they would be my guest because I will enjoy watching it. I feel many of those measures are going to pass anyway because of the overwhelming support they enjoy from the American public and the majority in both Chambers. Many are going to pass. I must say it astonishes me--and somewhat amuses me and bemuses me greatly--that somehow the opposing party has found someone who is willing and who is telling them to be seen as a party of trying to delay this train, to continue to support endless Federal mandates on States, counties, localities--and that means local taxpayers. We all know the saying: Lead, follow, or get out of the way. The Democrats seem to want to add a fourth option--lie down on the tracks. I actually read in the paper the other day that the Democrats were considering making a court challenge to the rule recently passed in the House requiring a supermajority to raise taxes. Now there is a political masterstroke. Sue the Representatives and the American public in order to be able to raise their taxes. How stunningly brilliant that is. So let me just close by thanking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for tactics employed this week and last on the unfunded mandates legislation for a piece of legislation that has been requested by most thoughtful people who administer local government. I think it makes me even more certain that the Republicans will enjoy a majority for many years to come. I thank the Chair. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

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, just a few moments of remarks, a moment to reflect. You do not get many of those here in this Chamber. It was a great honor and privilege last week to escort Wyoming's new Senator, my good friend, my old friend, Craig Thomas, to the well of the Senate Chamber for his swearing-in ceremony. That meant a great deal to me, and I think to us both, as he took the oath and became Wyoming's Senator, and for me, indeed, as I watched my old boyhood friend mark another and very significant and great accomplishment in his own life. It is a rare opportunity for me to serve with someone I have known nearly all my life. We go back a long way, growing up in Cody, WY. He was born in Wapiti, WY. Many say that is called Wapeaty, but it is not. It is the word for ``elk,'' Wapiti. And then he moved into Cody, 20 miles away, to my hometown. It was great fun to share those days together in the town founded by Buffalo Bill Cody himself, and we became friends and neighbors. In fact, we lived just across the alley from each other. He was a year behind me in high school, but he was the kind of person you noticed. He was fair, strong, good-hearted, very well liked by all his classmates, and none of us are at all surprised at how well Craig Thomas has done. In fact, we are all very proud of him. I will say that we called him Lyle in those days. I should not bring that up. That was his name. During those early years, Craig and I were each blessed to have two strong parents who nurtured, guided us, and were very patient with us. Craig's father was a schoolteacher. My dad was a lawyer in Cody, on the school board, very actively involved in education issues as well. Dad knew there was nothing more important than a good education. He had learned that from his father, Craig from his father. Both of our fathers instilled that goal in us, and we worked very hard to get it done. A lot of whatever success has come our way we owe to our parents. Craig's dear mother is living. She was here the other day on that proud day. So is mine. Our families knew each other. Our loving parents were always a strong presence in our lives. And as I say, Marge was here and sons Patrick and Greg and, of course, a sister who was a classmate of my brother's and daughters-in-law and others of the family. So then we, after high school, went to the University of Wyoming and not only hit the books but hit the tackling dummies. We played freshman football together for the Cowboys. And he went off to the Marines; I went off to the infantry. Many years passed. Politics attracted us both. And now we find ourselves serving together in the Senate. Along the way we met and married two very special women. It seems we are very fortunate to have overmarried. I think rockier had Ann and Susie not been strong and capable partners in our lives. Craig's wife Susie has dedicated her time, her energy, and her talents to the service of teaching, teaching of the learning disabled. And my wife Ann was a teacher, too, when we married over 40 years ago and has long been involved in many educational, artistic, and mental health issues. They have both been an inspiration to all who know them and are well dedicated to their strong commitment in making a difference in their communities, whether Wyoming or here. Susie Roberts Thomas comes from Barnum, WY, a town so small that the zip code is a fraction. In fact, a fellow who lived there said once it was so small he thought its name was ``Resume Speed.'' Her father was Harry Roberts, who was superintendent of public instruction in Wyoming, a very wonderful man, and her mother Toni. Well, the road here is not an easy one. As someone said, on the high road of humility in Washington, DC, you are not bothered by heavy traffic, and that is true. But nobody has paid his dues more generously and willingly than Craig Thomas, and the toughness he picked up during his service in the Marine Corps has served him well in life and politics. It is a contact sport. So Craig began his service in Wyoming and pursued his interests and his business and his activities and his work with the Wyoming Farm Bureau, the American Farm Bureau, and the Wyoming REA. I recall he used to lobby me on those issues with his remarkable brand of straightforwardness and candor. Now he is on the other side of that fence, and he will be the object of other lobbying efforts. I cannot wait for the REA to show up and begin to work him over on the budget. I hope I can sit in. We both came to this Congress with ties to our State government. He served in the statehouse from 1985 to 1989. I served there for about 13 years. We did not serve concurrently, but we both kept the lines of communication wide open on issues of concern to Wyoming. And then in 1989, President George Bush selected Dick Cheney to be his Secretary of Defense. Craig had already built a strong network of friends and supporters, so he was tapped to ``lead the charge'' for Dick's seat. To no one's surprise, he won--and worked very hard to do it. Soon after, he was asked by the media if he would be another Dick Cheney, and he quickly quipped that he would not. He said, ``Where Dick would have accomplished something but perhaps would have done it through the `insider route,' I would probably fuss more.'' And so he has. And Wyoming has been all the better for his ``fussing.'' He said once that no one would have been more pleased to see Dick Cheney Secretary of Defense than he in his whimsical, wry way of humor. He has never been a game player except on the sports field. He always tells you exactly how he feels and why, and he has a quality of outspoken honesty that is greatly appreciated out West where still to some their word is their bond. And so now he has jumped in and become wet all over. As our old college coach said, ``Jump in and get wet all over.'' Now he comes here and joins the Committees on Energy and Natural Resources, Foreign Relations, Indian Affairs, and Environment and Public Works. It will be great having Craig and our new Representative, Barbara Cubin, too, the first woman Congressman to represent Wyoming in the Equality State's history--and we are known as the Equality State--it will be an honor to serve with her. So we have swiftly ``jump started'' this session. We have all hit the ground running this year. There has been dramatic change in our lives, and the resulting challenges we face may be a bit tougher than in past years, but the rewards will be great, too. His dedicated spirit will help us all. It gives me a genuinely warm feeling and a great deal of pride to welcome Craig Thomas to the Senate. I cherish his friendship. He is a wonderful man, of great strength, great rich good humor. I hope neither one of us will recite the ``Cremation of Sam McGee'' from memory, certainly not in the Chamber. But perhaps at some time we will certainly do that for you. So I look forward to working with him, my old friend, during this historic 104th session of the Congress. God bless him and his work for Wyoming. I thank the Chair.