Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this legislation is necessary to put into law those very important provisions of the recent immigration bill which were deleted at the insistence of the White House. The taxpayers of the United States, and particularly those in the most heavily immigration-impacted States such as California, deserve our protection of the public treasury as contained in this measure. Without the provisions included in this bill, persons who are eligible to receive food stamps and other public assistance will now be permitted to bring to the United States their immigrant relatives whose income is also below the threshold for many of the Nation's welfare programs. And this, despite, our professed tradition of not allowing any person ``likely, at any time, to become a public charge'' to immigrate to this country. Without the provisions of this bill, illegal aliens will continue to receive drivers' licenses, and under the ``motor-voter'' law provisions, these illegal aliens with drivers' licenses could well wind up voting in U.S. elections. Without the protections contained in this bill, illegal aliens could continue to receive treatment for AIDS at taxpayers' expense. Please hear that--persons who should not even be in the country--who are here in violation of our laws--could receive treatment for AIDS at a current average cost of $119,000 per person. Without this legislation, illegal aliens will be permitted to remain in public housing for up to 18 months, even after they have been identified and are determined to be ineligible for this taxpayer-funded assistance. An unconscionable result. Without the provisions of this bill, immigrants who have become dependent on taxpayer-funded welfare will now be able to evade deportation because of a previous court decisionmaking immigrants on public assistance immune from deportation. This bill will clearly define the term ``public charge'' and make that important provision enforceable once again. Without the provisions herein, illegal aliens will continue to receive Social Security credit for performing unauthorized work in the United States. A startling result. Without the procedures provided in the measure for verifying an immigrant's eligibility for welfare, we will continue to have illegal aliens who obtain welfare merely by claiming they are a U.S. citizen. And, without the authorization provided in this bill, States will not have the authority to establish their own verification systems in order to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining State and local welfare benefits. Mr. President, the provisions in this bill were included in the illegal immigration bills that passed by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress. However, by holding the sword of a Government shutdown over the head of the Congress, President Clinton forced the Senate to delete these important provisions. This legislation will swiftly restore them. Most immigrants are hard working and self-sufficient. Many of those who do use welfare use it only because our laws and processes make it available to them. If it is not available, they will continue to work hard, succeed, and obtain the American dream without welfare--just as immigrants to this country have for most of our history. However, this administration not only resists sensible controls on the use of welfare by legal immigrants, it also insists on provisions that will result in illegal aliens accessing the welfare system--for example, by falsely claiming to be U.S. citizens. The American people should be appalled by that. Mr. President, the efforts of this administration to so dramatically change a vital part of title V of the illegal immigration bill at the last minute ill-serves the taxpayers of this country. Both its policies and its tactics are dead wrong. This bill will remedy that cunning manipulation of the legislation process, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, in accordance with the Refugee Act of 1980, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a letter to the President dated September 30, 1996, and signed by Senator Kennedy as ranking member and by me as chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Judiciary Committee, and a copy of Presidential Determination 96-59, concerning refugee admissions for fiscal year 1997.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I introduce a bill which will enable Devils Tower National Monument to retain its historic name. This national monument--indeed, our Nation's first national monument--has been known as ``Devils Tower'' for over 120 years. It is known the world over as perhaps one of the most distinguishing natural features of my State and is universally known for providing some of the best crack climbing in the world. In short, Mr. President, Devils Tower--and worldwide recognition of it, even through such movies as ``Close Encounters of the Third Kind''--is vitally important to my State, which depends so heavily on our tourism industry. But, to no one's surprise, there are always those out there who cannot leave a perfectly good thing alone. William Shakespeare said it well in ``King Lear'': ``Striving to better, oft we mar what's well.'' According to a July 17, 1996 release by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names, the National Park Service has advised the Board that several native American groups intend to submit a proposal--it may already have been submitted--to change the name of the monument. The intention--and a perfectly worthy one--is to find a name that is less offensive to native Americans, many of whom regard the monument as sacred. Mr. President, I am fully sensitive to the feelings of those involved with this initiative. My great-grandfather, Finn Burnett, was asked to be the ``boss farmer'' for Chief Washaki of the Shoshone Tribe. And my great uncle Deck married a full-blooded Shoshone. However, I do join my House counterpart, Congresswoman Barbara Cubin, in earnestly believing that little will be gained from a name change, and much history and tradition could be lost. Be aware that there is no obvious traditional Indian name standing as the obvious alternative designation. The disparate native American groups behind this proposal cannot even agree on what the proper name should be. They seem only to agree on what it should not be--Devils Tower. The number of suggested ``aboriginal names'' is as numerous as the number of different groups clamoring for the change. Among the candidates are Bear's Lodge, Grizzly Bear's Lodge, Bear's Tipi, Bear's Lair, Bear Lodge, Bear Lodge Butte, Tree Rock, and many others. So we should all understand that this is not a matter of changing the name of Devils Tower back to another which would be widely agreed upon and recognized by most native Americans. Instead, this initiative seems to accomplish little more than to dredge up age-old conflicts and divisions between descendants of European settlers and descendants of native Americans. This is most unfortunate and would result only in economic hardship for the area's citizens--``Indian'' and ``non- Indian'' alike. My legislation would prevent such hardship and preserve the name of Devils Tower, a name widely recognized and certainly the furthest thing from being offensive to any particular ethnic group. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I introduce a bill which will enable Devils Tower National Monument to retain its historic name. This national monument--indeed, our Nation's first national monument--has been known as ``Devils Tower'' for over 120 years. It is known the world over as perhaps one of the most distinguishing natural features of my State and is universally known for providing some of the best crack climbing in the world. In short, Mr. President, Devils Tower--and worldwide recognition of it, even through such movies as ``Close Encounters of the Third Kind''--is vitally important to my State, which depends so heavily on our tourism industry. But, to no one's surprise, there are always those out there who cannot leave a perfectly good thing alone. William Shakespeare said it well in ``King Lear'': ``Striving to better, oft we mar what's well.'' According to a July 17, 1996 release by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names, the National Park Service has advised the Board that several native American groups intend to submit a proposal--it may already have been submitted--to change the name of the monument. The intention--and a perfectly worthy one--is to find a name that is less offensive to native Americans, many of whom regard the monument as sacred. Mr. President, I am fully sensitive to the feelings of those involved with this initiative. My great-grandfather, Finn Burnett, was asked to be the ``boss farmer'' for Chief Washaki of the Shoshone Tribe. And my great uncle Deck married a full-blooded Shoshone. However, I do join my House counterpart, Congresswoman Barbara Cubin, in earnestly believing that little will be gained from a name change, and much history and tradition could be lost. Be aware that there is no obvious traditional Indian name standing as the obvious alternative designation. The disparate native American groups behind this proposal cannot even agree on what the proper name should be. They seem only to agree on what it should not be--Devils Tower. The number of suggested ``aboriginal names'' is as numerous as the number of different groups clamoring for the change. Among the candidates are Bear's Lodge, Grizzly Bear's Lodge, Bear's Tipi, Bear's Lair, Bear Lodge, Bear Lodge Butte, Tree Rock, and many others. So we should all understand that this is not a matter of changing the name of Devils Tower back to another which would be widely agreed upon and recognized by most native Americans. Instead, this initiative seems to accomplish little more than to dredge up age-old conflicts and divisions between descendants of European settlers and descendants of native Americans. This is most unfortunate and would result only in economic hardship for the area's citizens--``Indian'' and ``non- Indian'' alike. My legislation would prevent such hardship and preserve the name of Devils Tower, a name widely recognized and certainly the furthest thing from being offensive to any particular ethnic group. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few moments on an issue that is so very dear to the hearts of every citizen in my State--indeed most citizens of our Nation: I speak of the importance of open spaces. Now, I believe it is safe to say that some of us take our open spaces for granted--a charge that applies--especially so --to those of us inhabiting our Nation's western regions. Most of us, upon taking an objective look at our Western States, conclude the dire environmentalist warnings of imminent coast to coast asphalt are shrill, exaggerated and foundationless. And yet, as with any other hysterical manifestation, there is a kernel of truth hidden beneath the hyperbole. My State is blessed with many spectacular vistas, but perhaps none more so than the stunning Grand Teton mountains. Unless you have seen them yourself, you simply cannot appreciate their visual impact. They seem to come rearing up out of the prairie to tower high above our heads before plunging straight back down into the prairie again. In the valley beneath them lies the city of Jackson Hole. This is a city that has experienced booming growth in recent years as people from all over the Nation search for places to raise their families and make their fortunes that are not overtaxed, overregulated, or crime or pollution ridden. It has been both Wyoming's blessing and its curse to fit this bill so perfectly, and nowhere is this troubling dichotomy better exemplified than in the city of Jackson Hole. Traditionally a ranching area, that town has now become a tourist mecca. But as pleased as environmentalists are to see land use industries give way to tourism, this same phenomenon has resulted in the destruction of heretofore open ranchlands which have been sold off bit by bit to the developers. It is an unfortunate and oh-so slippery slope. For the more development which takes place in the valley at the base of the Tetons, the higher the land values--and their accompanying property taxes--climb. The higher the property and estate taxes climb, the more difficult it is for these generations old ranching families to stay in business. This represents a far more serious situation than many eastern Members of this body can possibly realize. Cattlemen have long been the hapless holders of one of the most razor thin profit margins of any industry in this Nation. Today, they are going out of business left, right and center, Mr President, and the last thing they do before they turn out the lights for good, is to sell off their property bit by bit to real estate developers who then build expensive homes that only the wealthy can afford--we call them ``log cabins on steroids.''. The view of those mountains is spectacular and these developers and real estate agents charge for it accordingly. Mr. President, the critical importance of preserving these incredible views--euphemistically referred to as ``view sheds'' by the land managers--available to all is of no small import to my State or the Nation. We need to be more business friendly. We need to keep our tax appetites under control. We absolutely need to reduce contrived regulation on our cattle industry and we need to ensure its access to Federal and State grazing lands and reasonable grazing fees. Above all, we must work to keep our ranchers ranching and our open lands open, in order to prevent the developers from overrunning this fragile and magnificent part of our Earth.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, on May 18, 1995, I joined my able and steady colleague Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska in introducing a series of eight bills to address the long-term problems of Social Security. I rise today to join Senator Kerrey in reintroducing two bills, S. 824 and S. 825, which address the long-term solvency problems of the Social Security Program. The changes that Senator Kerrey and I propose are technical in nature and are made in both S. 824 and S. 825 unless otherwise indicated. Specifically, it was our original intent to permit contributors on a Personal Investment Plan [PIP] to pass the balance of such plan to their surviving spouse upon their death, except if the surviving spouse agrees in writing that such balance should be transferred to a designated beneficiary, such as a child or sibling. Our intent was to provide the contributor with the greatest possible flexibility in his or her estate planning, while at the same time recognizing the vulnerability of a surviving spouse. The second technical correction would require that in the event of the contributor's death where there is no surviving spouse and there has been no designation of a beneficiary of the proceeds of the personal investment plan, the proceeds should revert to the deceased's estate, not to the Social Security trust fund. It was our original intent to allow contributors to retain ownership of their personal investment plan, even after death. The third technical correction would permit financial institutions, in addition to banks, to administer personal investment plans. It was our original intent to permit personal investment plans to be administered by the identical institutions that were permitted to administer individual retirement accounts. Finally, technical corrections are made to S. 825 to conform to our original intent adjustments in the formula for determining benefits to our original intent. As these changes are technical in nature, we have been assured by the actuaries of the Social Security Administration that such changes should have no effect on the present solvency of the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, on May 18, 1995, I joined my able and steady colleague Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska in introducing a series of eight bills to address the long-term problems of Social Security. I rise today to join Senator Kerrey in reintroducing two bills, S. 824 and S. 825, which address the long-term solvency problems of the Social Security Program. The changes that Senator Kerrey and I propose are technical in nature and are made in both S. 824 and S. 825 unless otherwise indicated. Specifically, it was our original intent to permit contributors on a Personal Investment Plan [PIP] to pass the balance of such plan to their surviving spouse upon their death, except if the surviving spouse agrees in writing that such balance should be transferred to a designated beneficiary, such as a child or sibling. Our intent was to provide the contributor with the greatest possible flexibility in his or her estate planning, while at the same time recognizing the vulnerability of a surviving spouse. The second technical correction would require that in the event of the contributor's death where there is no surviving spouse and there has been no designation of a beneficiary of the proceeds of the personal investment plan, the proceeds should revert to the deceased's estate, not to the Social Security trust fund. It was our original intent to allow contributors to retain ownership of their personal investment plan, even after death. The third technical correction would permit financial institutions, in addition to banks, to administer personal investment plans. It was our original intent to permit personal investment plans to be administered by the identical institutions that were permitted to administer individual retirement accounts. Finally, technical corrections are made to S. 825 to conform to our original intent adjustments in the formula for determining benefits to our original intent. As these changes are technical in nature, we have been assured by the actuaries of the Social Security Administration that such changes should have no effect on the present solvency of the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank my friend for his courtesy, and for his many hours of tireless work on this bill. Commerce, State and Justice FY 1997 Appropriations Bill

Mr. SIMPSON. I would further inquire if it is still possible for the Office of National Drug Control Policy to consider using some of their discretionary funds to provide additional funding for the Rocky Mountain HIDTA?

Mr. SIMPSON. I would ask my friend from Alabama if he feels the existing report language could preclude those funds currently earmarked for the State of Colorado from being applied to all Members of the Rocky Mountain HIDTA.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to address my friend from Alabama regarding the issue of funding for new High Intensify Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTAs) in the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. I seek a clarification of the report language that accompanies the Treasury-Postal title of this bill, which earmarks specified amounts for new HIDTAs, including $3,000,000 for a newly designated HIDTA in the State of Colorado. I inquire as to whether my colleague from Alabama is aware that the HIDTA application originally submitted by the State of Colorado has been updated to include the States of Wyoming and Utah in a Rocky Mountain HIDTA?

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it is Congress' intent that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall establish a procedure for the review and approval of credentialing organizations equivalent to the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools for the purpose of prescreening aliens seeking to enter the United States for employment as healthcare workers. It is our intent that the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services will actively review entities that petition to perform this prescreening and approve those that qualify. homestead, fl's eda project

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on S. 1711, the Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 1996. This bill is one of three major veterans' bills being considered this week by the Senate; the other two are S. 1791, a bill to provide cost of living increases to recipients of veterans' benefits, and H.R. 3118, a compromise measure crafted jointly by the members of the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs which would, among other things, reform the eligibility standards for VA health care. These three bills are the culmination of 2 years of work in the Veterans' Affairs Committee. They are all good bills, bills that have achieved bipartisan support within the Committee. They are also bills that, while they put into place useful, even vital, legislation--without ``breaking the bank.'' Time is becoming a precious commodity as the Senate winds down in these final days, so I will not overstay my welcome with a lengthy explanation of the contents of S. 1711. A detailed explanation of the original bill as reported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs--and of the eight bills from which it is derived--is in the committee's report of the legislation. A detailed explanation of the bill, as it would be amended in accordance with an agreement reached with our House counterparts, is set out in the ``Joint Explanatory Statement'' which I request be made part of the Record. I will, however, summarize. S. 1711, as reported, would, first, create a commission proposed by our former leader, Bob Dole. That commission, the Commission on Service Members and Veterans Transition Assistance, would study current programs designed to assist service members and veterans in readjusting to civilian life after service. Based on that analysis, it would report to the Congress its recommendations on how such programs might be improved. I have yet to see a Government program, Mr. President, that cannot stand improvement, so I am confident that the next Congress will be provided with useful information on how we can better assist veterans in readjusting to civilian life. S. 1711 would also put into place a number of reforms in VA- administered life insurance programs. Most notably, it would make lifetime insurance coverage available to retired reservists who now can only get such coverage until they are 61-years old. It would also facilitate the viatication--or cashing out--of life insurance policies by the terminally ill before they die. These are significant, and useful, reforms. The bill would also redefine the term ``Vietnam era'' for purposes of VA programs. Some members of the Senate may be surprised to learn that the legal definition of the ``Vietnam era'' extends only from August 5, 1964--the date of the incident which gave rise to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution--until May 7, 1975. United States troops were in Vietnam, however, before that time, and by February 28, 1961, they were accompanying their Vietnamese counterparts on combat missions. In short, U.S. troops were subjected to the real perils of ground combat at least as early as February 28, 1961. This bill would recognize that fact by redefining the term ``Vietnam era'' back to February 28, 1961 for purposes of most VA programs. This amendment is more than a symbolic one--though the symbolic value of recognizing the valor of those who were first into Vietnam should not be lost. Some VA benefits--most notably pension benefits to assist poor ``wartime'' veterans who are disabled due to non-service-connected injury or disease--are only available to those who served in wartime. It is entirely appropriate that such benefits be extended to those who actually faced peril in Vietnam before that war's ``legal'' starting date. The bill would make a number of other constructive improvements to VA education, home loan, and burial benefit programs, and would also make necessary changes in procedures governing VA's adjudication of claims. I know that every Senator is concerned about the time it takes for VA to process a veteran's application for benefits. Progress is being made on that front--but more needs to be made. Finally, Mr. President, this bill, as reported, would make a series of technical corrections to a massive piece of legislation approved by the 103d Congress, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, Public Law 103-353. That bill was the product of a multiyear executive branch effort, spanning both the Bush and Clinton administrations, which resulted in a recommended updating of Veterans Reemployment Rights laws which dated back to World War II. Those laws, which allow service members to return to prior employment after service, had not been systematically reviewed since World War II. The 1994 legislation took care of that--and did so, I might add, after an extraordinary display of joint, cooperative effort by the executive and legislative branches, and by employer and veterans' groups. But, as is often the case in a massive restructuring of the law, the bill, as enacted, contained both ambiguities and technical oversights and errors. S. 1711 contains provisions to correct such problems. Mr. President, the amendment to S. 1711 which I offer today contains each and all of these key provisions from S. 1711. It would add, however, a series of provisions adopted by the House in various bills which I--and the ranking member, my good friend, Senator Jay Rockefeller--have agreed to. Crucial among those provisions are amendments to the law which will have the effect of overturning the result reached by the Court of Veterans Appeals in the case, Davenport v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 476 (1995). In that case, the Court construed existing law creating veterans' eligibility for vocational rehabilitation benefits, and ruled that since the statutes do not require that there be a connection between the veteran's service-connected disability and his or her employment handicap, VA could not impose such a requirement as a condition to the receipt of vocational rehabilitation benefits. That requirement--which VA had imposed by now-overturned regulations literally for decades--would be reinstated. The House-enacted amendments to which we have agreed would also put into place a number if constructive changes to the ``Montgomery GI Bill.'' It would provide for benefits to students participating in cooperative and open-circuit television programs. More importantly, it would allow certain previously ineligible persons--those eligible for the education benefits program in place before enactment of the Montgomery GI bill, and certain National Guard members and reservists-- to ``buy into'' Montgomery GI bill benefits. Finally, these additions would create equity with respect to benefits earned by deceased veterans. First, they would increase the benefits made available to the survivors of veterans who were entitled to VA compensation benefits, but who had not established their entitlement through VA's adjudication process before they died. S. 1711 would allow the survivors of such veterans to claim 2 years' worth of compensation. It would also allow the survivors of any veteran receiving compensation to retain compensation paid for the month within which the veteran died. Currently, Mr. President, VA requests that the veteran's widow refund money previously sent by VA. As I said when I began these comments, S. 1711 is a good, thoughtful, useful bill. It is also a bill that does not ``bust the budget.'' It is just the sort of legislation--good legislation that does not add to the deficit--that I was determined to guide through the Veterans' Affairs Committee when I assumed the chairmanship of the committee this Congress. I recall that when I assumed the job of chairman in the 104th Congress--much to the chagrin of some so-called ``leaders'' of the veterans community--there was a good deal of gnashing of teeth. Worse, there was much distortion of what they assumed I planned to do. It was bandied about that I would cut veterans' benefits. Many assumed that, and based on that assumption, some service organizations fanned the flames of fear among veterans. Their assumptions about what I would seek to accomplish were grossly in error, as this and other bills--and history--have shown. They were based, I can only surmise, on the mistaken belief that my zeal for restraining the growth in entitlements spending would lead me to cutting veterans' benefits. I, of course, had never proposed cuts--because cuts in entitlements' spending are not necessary to get control over the deficit. All that is required is restrained growth. The bill before the Senate now reflects that sort of restraint. It includes positive, useful, constructive, bipartisan legislation that helps veterans, and does not contribute to the deficit. Such legislation is possible, if all start with the determination to craft that form of thoughtful legislation. I do thank the members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, particularly the committee's ranking minority member, my friend, Senator ``Jay'' Rockefeller, and the committee's staff, for working with me to put together that sort of legislation. I urge the Senate's approval of S. 1711. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that relevant material be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Buy the book.

Mr. SIMPSON. That is very nice. Thank you.

Mr. SIMPSON. And a supportive spouse. Anyone in this line of work that does not have a supportive spouse is in for anguish. I have had a most remarkable woman at my side for 42 years. And as she said to me one day in a spirit of the campaign, she said, ``Wait a minute. Don't give me that. I'm a volunteer in this outfit.'' I remember that very well. But let me tell you, this is a consuming exercise and the sooner we learn that we are not partisans, we are not Democrat and Republican; we are colleagues in the U.S. Senate, the better. I learned it fast because I was the ranking junior Republican to Ted Kennedy, Al Cranston and Gary Hart when I came, and all three of them were running for President. I said, ``You run for President and I won't embarrass you, but let's not have any of this stuff,'' and never did. It was a tremendous experience. So I will now be going on to Harvard to teach. Yes, I know that is shocking to some but quite stimulating to others. Some even fell out of the gallery on that. Going to Harvard to teach. I will be at the Kennedy School of Government, to be a visiting professor there, the Lombard chair, after preparing my syllabus, whatever that is. And I shall teach, and the teaching will be the course called ``Creative Legislation, Congress and the Press.'' So you might imagine I will have a delightful experience in that. And then, of course, a book has been finished. That has a unique title. The title of that book is ``In the Old Gazoo: Observations From a Lifetime of Scrapping with the Press.'' And that book, of course, will be a remarkable document and certainly I will at least sell 50 copies because I shall assign it to my class. And so that will be at least--now, let us see, the royalty on that. Well, there is no question about where we are headed here. So enough. The legacy that I have with Social Security is going to go on to Judd Gregg, wonderful, picking it right up where I left off. The legacy of immigration will go on to John Kyl and Dianne Feinstein, and that is spirited and I am pleased. The legacy of the Veterans' Affairs Committee will go to Arlen Specter and Jay Rockefeller, and they are both dedicated, passionate people about veterans. In fact, almost too much so. That is why we will have some further discussions together on that. But, I intend to work with young people. I intend to get involved with the Third Millennium. These are not antisenior people. These are young people. If people between 18 and 45 cannot figure out what is going to happen to them when they are 65, they will be picking grit with the chickens. We are going to work with them, we are going to talk about the entitlements and Social Security and Medicare. I commend the leaders I have worked with, Senator Nickles, Ted Stevens, Howard Baker, Robert Byrd, Al Cranston, Wendell Ford, George Mitchell, Tom Daschle, Trent Lott--doing a tremendous job. I am very proud of him. And particularly to the Wyoming people who allowed me to do this in my own way for 18 years--in my own unique way, however that is defined. But, to me it has been a true honor to represent this proud people of Wyoming, my native land, who are opinionated, thoughtful, articulate, and well read; who really let you know how they feel and don't mince words, and that is the way we do it out in the land of high altitude and low multitude. Someone asked me, what would be the epitaph you would like at the end of public life? It did not take me long to think of the answer. The answer is, ``You would have wanted him on your side.'' It has been a great run. God bless you all. Mr. President, it is very important that I relate the great pride I have in the fact that my father served in this U.S. Senate and what a sheer privilege and honor it has been to come here after him. He served here from 1962 to 1966 and retired because of arthritis and Parkinson's disease, and he lived to be 95. So I want to say that to carry on his legacy has been a moving thing. And as the passing parade of life goes on, in 18 years here, I want to recognize Bill, Colin, Susan, who are wonderful, dear, splendid people, all Ann's friends and my friends--our children. Since I came here, Bill has married Debbie, and we could not have found one like that for him. They have given us two grandchildren in the passing years, Beth and Eric--just dazzlers, both of them. And then Susan is married to a wonderful man named John Gallagher. Again, if you could go shopping for those in-laws, sons-in-laws and daughters- in-law, those are two you would pick--Debbie and John. Colin is not linked up with anyone as yet. But he has had a great deal of hot pursuit over the years, in my time here. He is a wonderful, splendid man, the middle son. So my parents are, too, joined now and gone since I came here. I close with three things my parents taught me that I leave with you. No. 1, my mother said, ``Humor is the universal solvent against the abrasive elements of life.'' It is, and you need it here. No. 2 is our line of work, and Edmund Burke said it best. Listen to it: Those who would carry the great public schemes must be proof against the most fatiguing delays, the most mortifying disappointments, the most shocking insults, and the worse of all--the presumptious judgment of the ignorant beyond their design. That is our work. That is what we do. But in the combat of the day, the best one of all, if you are doing anything, you are making enemies. If you are doing nothing, or just want to be loved, get into another line of work, because here it is, all in this little couplet: You have no enemies, you say? My friend, your boast is poor. For anyone who has entered the fray of duty, where the brave endure, must have made foes. If he has none, small is the work that he has done; he has never cast a cup from perjured lips, he has never struck a trailer on the hip, never turned a wrong to right, or beat a coward in a fight. I have lived that one. I commend it to you. Finally, on my wall in leather--appropriately, because leather is supple and tough--is this phrase: Press on. Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. I commend that to my colleagues. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Having, as I said, done that work also. So I would say that it has been a great run for me to have served with Malcolm Wallop, a wonderful man, who was our defense expert in this body. Dick Cheney, how can you say any more about that man? A great old friend who served Wyoming with great distinction. Craig Thomas, Barbara Cubin in the House. There have been some great honors, great friends, great adventures. Ten years of serving with Bob Dole was a remarkable honor and privilege. What a great man he is. There isn't a person in this body who has ever worked with him who would not know that. And then, of course, the special class of 1978, many of them still here and soon to go. Ones who are still here: Bill Bradley, Thad Cochran, Bill Cohen, Jim Exon, Howell Heflin, Nancy Kassebaum, Carl Levin, Larry Pressler, Dave Pryor, John Warner. We all came here together. Many of us will leave together. And they have been the dearest of friends, very special people. I have been blessed with a wonderful staff: Don Hardy, my chief of staff, whom I have known since he was 14 years old. He was a spirited man then, spirited boy; a spirited colt makes the best horse. I saw great potential in him, and he met every bit of it; Joe Ratliff, my first campaign manager, my first AA; Chuck Blahous, who will go on now to serve with Senator Craig, who is just everything. There is not a thing he can't do--anything, marvelous; Tad Segal, my able press person; Tote Turner and Brad Westby, who sit at the front office and take all the abuse that some rugged old people can give like ``Where is that big, skinny rascal? I want to tack him up on the wall.'' ``Yes, sir. How are you today? And I hear you.'' And Evora Williams and Carroll Wood and Margaret Carroll who were here with Cliff Hansen, Senator Cliff Hansen for nearly 12 years and with me for 18, so they have invested 30 years of their lives in representing Wyoming people; and Laurie Rosen, my scheduler who controls my life in a gentle, bright way; and Don Hardy, the Veterans' Affairs Committee, more than a chief counsel, a lovely friend; Dick Day. I related I brought him here to do immigration work: ``Come on out here; I need somebody who cares about me. I'm going into the tank where I will be called everything.'' Well, that was true. I was called everything. And Dick Day met every test--every test, every friendship demand; Scott Northrop, his patience in ferrying me around from place to place and also very able legislative assistant in his own right. I could go on. And you are thinking, ``He is going to.'' Diane Rodekohr, my coordinator in Wyoming, there is nothing like her-- absolutely splendid, efficient, tactical, and so precise, so good; Robin Bailey from the beginning almost, 14 years, handles all my Academy appoints, does the grunt work and tough stuff; Lyn Shanaghy in Jackson and her husband, Joe, very wonderful people; Karen McCreery in Cody. I hope I will see much more of her, and I will, because in my other life to come she will be right there at my side. And she has been at my side all these years. I could go on. Cherie Burd, Olivia Haag. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of the people who served with me. I will enter that into the Record without any further information other than that because I cannot take much more time of the body.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I will speak a bit about the fact that this will be my last opportunity to be on this floor. Indeed, it has been a rich and wonderful experience. There are several corollaries that I could share with those who come after me with regard to legislating. One is that legislating is very dry work, if done properly. It is not about sound bites. It is not about press conferences. It is called hard work--doing your homework, doing the hearings, sitting at the hearings, getting involved in the floor debate, the conference committee, and the all-night sessions. That is what it is. And there are many who do it well. The occupant of the Chair is a classic example of a legislator--a true legislator; a right down-in-the-trench legislator, and he knows the rules of the game to help get the work done. And no one is more skilled than that. There is another one as skilled--perhaps more. And I think the Senator in the chair would admit that it is Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia who has become a very delightful friend. I wish that all here could get to know Robert Byrd as I have come to know him--a most extraordinary Renaissance type of legislator; a soaring and extraordinary person who knows his craft. And all of us would admit that without any possible exception. So to Robert Byrd, my thanks because he ``trained me up.'' He taught me so much. And when I was a rambunctious, new assistant majority leader, he took me under his wing. One night I remember he was on the other side of a rather wrenching all-night session. And I was hunting for ways out. I said, ``Robert, how do I get out of this?'' He said, ``Now, sit down, Alan.'' I shall relate to you some things that later will be discerned where they may have come from where you will be unable to identify the source. Then he told me how to extricate myself. I did it in a way which, obviously, was deferential and pleasing to him, and certainly to me it ``saved my bacon,'' would be the phrase. I have not forgotten that. I would never forget those things. So it has been a great joy to serve with him. Then, of course, my dear colleague, Craig Thomas. We didn't come here together but we grew up together. We were boyhood chums in Cody, WY. Imagine the pleasure of serving in a legislature with someone you knew from the fifth year of life; watch him come here, and serve with him. He is a wonderful man; a great, great friend; and his wife, Susan. They will now take the role of senior Senator from Wyoming. So that is a part of the swan song. Those other corollaries of legislating--I see there is stirring here. Whenever you are ready to proceed, why, just let me know, and I will, of course, defer to the process, having done that kind of work. Several corollaries, the best of them. There was a great one. That is this: Everything here hangs by a thread. Do not forget that one. We all learn that one. Another one is: Nothing ever dies. If it is not here this year, it will come back, like Lazarus from the dead, next year with a new shroud, a little tattered with more dirt clods on it but literally will rise from the dead. Legislation never dies. Staff assures that. Staff is eternal. Legislating and legislators move on. Another one is: Get a crumb when you can't get a loaf. If you have not learned that--you either learn to compromise or learn to cry yourself to sleep at night. That is the way that works. And then remember something, too, at least for Republicans, and that is Democrats do good work, too. I know that is a sick idea to some, but nevertheless it is true. And to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I say Republicans do good work, too. I think the occupant of the chair will agree; I have never seen in my entire 31 years of legislating what I think is a very bad precedent, and that is a conference committee conferencing without the other side present. That cannot be done. And the sooner that stops, the better off this place will be. You cannot have a conference committee when you just have one party in the room. I have had it done to me, and I did not like it at all. I will not name the chairman involved, but I will never forget it; we just met and the hammer went down and said, ``There is the report. You do not have to sign the conference committee report.'' I said, ``We haven't even talked about it. We don't know what it is.'' ``Well, we are in the majority. School's out.'' So then we came back and we did that ourselves, and that is very unfortunate. I hope that does not happen again. It is not worthy of the legislative body. And maybe I was raised by the masters, but I have conferenced with people like Mo Udall, and John Dingell, and Peter Rodino, and Ron Mazzoli, who are wonderful people. You learn from them and you learn in a conference that the Democrats have ideas, too. They are often well worth hearing. I note the presence of the assistant leader, and I believe there is some papers to move. I will defer if the Senator wishes to move those or take another 5 minutes and conclude.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me just relate a bit about the immigration legislation which is now on its way to us in the continuing resolution. After negotiations until about 2 a.m. two nights ago and then until this morning until 4:30 a.m., if I look bright and alert it is deceptive in every sense. One of my staff, John Knepper, a fine young man, spent all night here and all morning. We finally turned him back to his home in a zombie-like condition and thank him so much for his splendid work last night and this morning. In the course of dealing with this huge bill, a very significant bill with regard to illegal immigration, we all were confronted with the reality that the purpose of leaders is to lead. Our leaders wanted to complete this session and do it this weekend. To do that, there were accommodations of varying degrees, obviously. Some disappointments, some victories, some defeats. We all know that feeling as we wind down a legislative year. It is the time when much can happen, and if one is not observing carefully, things are slid into a bill and things are slid out of a bill. We all, then, go home and say, ``Wait, what happened here?'' Or, ``Well, we got that in.'' That is the way legislating is, too. I thought that the leadership, in pressing forward to meet the schedule that they set for themselves and the bipartisan way in which it was done, our majority leader, Trent Lott and minority leader, Tom Daschle, Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, our assistant leader here, Don Nickles, Senator Ford, all worked together to make it work. I saw that over the course of days. The other evening when we went until 2 a.m. there was a group of four of us, including Congressman Lamar Smith. I must pay him tribute: A remarkable man, steady, and thoughtful. I have never seen him get too impatient, never seen him really rise up like your loyal correspondent does from time to time. He was steady on the course throughout. The rest of that quartet were Senator Kennedy and Congressman Howard Berman and myself. We worked up some changes to what is called title V. There are no changes in the conference report on immigration, on illegal immigration, except in that one section. Everything else is exactly the same, and it is sweeping. It is about new Border Patrol agents, 5,000. It is about new penalties for those who use or alter or make fraudulent documents. It extends the visa waiver pilot program, and it provides 900 new investigators over 3 years to enforce alien smuggling and employer sanctions. Alien smuggling can subject one to a life in prison. There are heavy penalties to those who misuse and abuse documents, and 300 INS investigators will be hired here to check on those who overstay their visas. Remember that half of the people who come to the United States illegally originally were here legally. In other words, half of the illegal population in the United States came here legally, and then, of course, visa overstayers, visa fraud, student overstayers--we have the ability now to begin to correct that. There is a newly rewritten and streamlined removal process, combining exclusion and deportation into a single legal process. We also got rid of layers of people who love to bring class actions and disrupt the normal course of the INS's work. We make the sponsors' affidavit of support, finally, a legally enforceable document which should provide some relief to the U.S. taxpayer. There is a minimum INS presence in every State. There is a system of expedited removal which should curb the abuse of our asylum system while still providing a hearing for an immigration judge to those who make an asylum claim. I want to thank Senator Leahy for his work. I did not thank him at the time the amendment passed properly, but, nevertheless, a good deal of his material is in here. He felt strongly about that and he presented it well and won the case here. We adjusted that measure somewhat but it is still a good measure--not exactly what he would have wanted and not exactly what I would have wanted, and therefore, justifiably good. There is a streamlined system for deporting aliens convicted of crimes. There is a requirement that all criminal aliens be detained until they are deported. Domestic violence and stalking are made deportable offenses. There is a provision to eliminate what is called ``parachute kids,'' foreign students who come in and then attend public schools at taxpayer expense. I commend Senator Feinstein for her work on that one. There is a pilot program for verification of eligibility to work, and there will be much more of that in the future because no matter how vigorous you want to be on illegal immigration and all the abuses of the system, nothing will work until we have a more counterfeit-resistant type of verification system--whatever that may be, whether it would eventually be a Social Security card, a slide- through card like you use with a VISA when you make a purchase, perhaps some type of driver's license photograph, retina examination like they have done in California. But at some point in time you are going to have to have a more secure identifier. It is going to have to be used only twice in a person's life. It is used at the time of new-hire employment, at the time of work, and at the time of drawing any benefits from any public assistance program. That is when it would be used. Of course, it would have to be presented by not just people who ``look foreign'', but by, as I have said a thousand times, by bald Anglos like me, too. That is what will come. It is interesting to me that, still, you hear the cry of the editorial writers talking about the ``slippery slope'' and ID cards, national ID cards, or tattoos, or Nazi Germany. I heard all that in 18 years. But I haven't seen anybody write anything yet about the fact that when you go to get on an airplane, somebody at the curb, who is not connected with any agency, except the airline, is asking you for a picture ID I am waiting for the first editorial on that. I am sure it will be a magnificent thing, about the slippery slope. What it is about is safety, and what it is about here in immigration is the abuse of the system. The sooner we get on with it and forget the blather about a national ID--which nobody ever proposed and never has been part of any bill I have been involved with--get on with it, unless, of course, somebody can tell me what we should do with the gentlemen at the curb who asks you for a picture ID. So we also have in this bill a nationwide fingerprinting of apprehended illegals within the IDEN system. We have confidentiality provisions for battered women and children so that there cannot be someone holding someone in almost a hostage situation because of their status as illegals. People say, well, when these people come and they are illegal, we must care for them and be humane. I say, you bet. How do you do that when they are here illegally? When they are illegal, they are going to be exploited. There is protection for battered women and children in the welfare provisions. We have increased staffing at ports of entry. We have criminal penalties for high-speed flights and border checkpoints, which often lead to great safety difficulties for the enforcement officials. We have subpoena authority for employer sanctions investigations. We have the AG's authority for use of State or local law enforcement officers--something that would never have been suggested years ago. There is also a provision for a fence, a 12 or 14-mile fence along the southern border of the United States. That is in here. There are a lot of things in here. I hope I get that in perspective. We have waived some of the serious environmental obstructions on the construction of that fence, and that is in the bill. That had leverage on that. People say, ``How could you do this and waive the Endangered Species Act,'' and so on. The reason we did that is because we need to get the fence built. The last time we built a fence in that area, there was something called the ``California gnat catcher,'' or something, that held it up for many, many months until they found that the gnat catcher really would fly over a fence to mate. I thought that was good that they determined, since it had wings, it probably would fly over a fence to mate. And so that is the kind of thing we will have abrogated under this bill. It doesn't mean that we are dissembling the environmental laws. In fact, it was the work of Senator Feinstein and Senator Kyl that gave rise to the need for the fence. If you have ever been to the border near Tijuana, from the sea to the Tijuana Airport, you really want to see that some day. I also commend the Border Patrol and the INS for their work. So those are some of the things that are in the bill, and many more. I could go on, but I shan't. I want to thank Lamar Smith. I thank Senator Kennedy. He never votes with me, but I want to thank him anyway. He and I have worked together on immigration for 18 years. He has been the chairman, or I have been the chairman. There have been some remarkable negotiations and discussions, but through it all has been his staff person, Michael Myers, and there has been Jerry Tinker, a marvelous man, who is gone from us now, but was a great help to my person. My friend Dick Day, who served me as chief counsel and staff director in all of my immigration activities, there could not be a truer friend, a more loyal man than Dick Day. He worked so closely with Jerry Tinker, another wonderfully loyal and delightful man, and with Michael Myers and Senator Kennedy. We have had a good run. It has been a great pleasure. Congressman Berman was with us the other evening until 2 in the morning, another spirited and remarkable man I have come to enjoy greatly. I thank Orrin Hatch for his steady, powerful work with regard to things that create passion in him. He is a man of passion and such a bright and thoughtful legislator. He was steady at the helm through all of this, with regard to the negotiations in conference. And to John Kyl, who is a newer member of the subcommittee which I chaired, a wonderfully perceptive, thoughtful, precise individual, who, when he sees something, he knows what result he wants to obtain. He will get that. Another member of the subcommittee is Dianne Feinstein. Senator Feinstein is a remarkable woman. It has been a great pleasure to work with her on illegal and legal immigration matters, and to see her learn the issues. The issues of immigration are emotion, fear, guilt, and racism. The only way to do it is to wipe those people away who talk like that and move on into the issue as it really is. Brush away emotion, fear, guilt, and racism. She has done that, and she is good. Next year, either she or Senator Kyl will be the chairman of the subcommittee. If I may make a partisan statement, I hope it will be Senator Kyl because he would be, of course, the Republican majority member. If not, then Senator Feinstein will be the Chair. But either way, America will gain from these two people. They work together very well. They worked on the fence issue, on other issues in conference, and they have a duality of interest and regard and trust for each other. You can't do this work without an element of trust. So as I then finish the remarks about what is still in this bill--and I have given you that--let me tell you what was taken from title V. Remember, there were no changes in any other title of this bill. But in title V, through the negotiations of these last long nights, and rosy- fingered dawn, here is what has been lost from title V. Under the administration's threat of shutting down the Federal Government unless Congress make changes in the immigration bill--and that was, in essence, a threat--that it pass both Houses by huge majorities, we lost some very important parts of the conference report. Principally, we lost the provision that would have ensured that persons who bring their immigrant relatives would have sufficient resources or income to provide them support, if needed. This was called the 140- or 200-percent requirement of poverty; 140-percent of poverty level and 200-percent requirement of poverty level. That was to reduce the number of those immigrant relatives who themselves would qualify for welfare, where you have a situation where a person bringing in an immigrant member of their family may not have enough resources to escape the poverty level themselves. So it seems absurd to lower it as it now has come down to 125 percent of poverty where a person near poverty gets to bring in another person near poverty, and then that person who comes in under the new law being a public charge and being responsible for that person, then you are going to have a serious problem. But that will come to pass, and that will be corrected within years to come. But even under the 140-percent standard, many immigrants would immediately qualify for many welfare programs. But even this modest standard was too much for the President. And he can answer for that in the campaign and in the future. We lost a provision that would have defined the term ``public charge.'' And without such a definition we really cannot deport even those recent immigrants who have become completely dependent upon taxpayer-funded welfare. The only bright spot there is that under the welfare bill you can't receive welfare for a 4- or 5-year period, and there are certain conditions there. The White House also insisted on the removal of the provision prohibiting illegal aliens from earning Social Security credits while working illegally in the United States. That is a rather remarkable bit of information, and that is what the President insisted upon. We had it in there to prohibit illegal aliens from earning Social Security credits while working illegally in the United States. The White House even rejected the provision which would have required a fair distribution of refugee assistance. This was one of the principal activities of Senator Feinstein. This is what she had in mind, and she was very right. And I tried to stick with her through all of the negotiations, because under current law the distribution of refugee assistance is highly erratic and inequitable. California counties receive $37 per refugee while counties in certain other States receive almost $500 per refugee. We shall let the President explain that to the people of California, which I am sure he will. Finally, we lost provisions that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving treatment for AIDS. I hope you hear that. This is not about homophobia. It is not about anything. It is about a remarkable provision that means that, if an illegal alien is receiving treatment for AIDS, they will continue to receive that treatment which can amount to about $119,000 per year. We have provisions in the law that illegals receive assistance for certain illnesses and ailments--tuberculosis. Obviously, that is in our vital interest. But never have we done this, which is an extraordinary departure. And we shall let the President explain that, how we provide taxpayers' money to illegal aliens for treatment--not testing--treatment for AIDS. I worked diligently to remove that. It is not removed. And the President will explain that, and I know he will. But what remains in title V is of interest, too, because here is what we salvaged from that section of that title. States may deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens under title programs; very good provision. Social Security benefits may no longer be paid to illegal aliens in the United States, even though I read you the other portion. That is different. They may no longer be paid. For the first time all applicants for Federal public assistance must provide proof of citizenship, or legal residence. That is in title V. Illegal aliens will no longer be eligible for reduced in-State college tuition. It is in there. The GAO will study the use of Pell grants and federally funded student aid of college students who are illegal, or nonresident aliens. That is in there. Every person seeking to bring their relatives here as immigrants must sign a legally enforceable affidavit promising to provide financial support, if required. That is in there; very important provision. All persons who bring their relatives here as immigrants must have an income of at least 125 percent of the poverty level. I very much wish it could have been more. I think that is going to cause real problems in the future. States will now be authorized to limit aliens' access to cash assistance programs. Federal funds will be authorized for full reimbursement to States for the cost of emergency medical and ambulance services to illegal aliens. That is a very important provision; bipartisan in every way. We restrict the availability of public housing to illegal aliens, finally. It is not what we wanted. But it is a start. Senator Harry Reid worked on that for years. Many of us have worked on that for many years. There were changes. But it is still in there. Then we require verification of eligibility of citizenship for lawful alien status in order to obtain public housing. So those are things that still are retained in title V. And you will recall that the White House was insisting that title V be repealed. It was not repealed. There were good things in it that were taken out. I reviewed those. Good things in it were left in. And I reviewed those. I ask unanimous consent that a statement of legislative history on Division C be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma for his remarks about my pending retirement. I want to commend him because I have done that line of work. I served for 10 years as the assistant leader, and the occupant of the chair served for 8 years as assistant leader, so the three of us in this Chamber have added quite a dimension to the efforts of the Senate. I commend the Senator. I think he is doing a fine job. I am very proud to have seen you do the job. You are going to succeed very well in the future and be of great assistance to our very fine leader, Trent Lott, who, I think, too, is truly a leader. I thank the Senator for that. Let me indulge my absent colleagues for a few minutes as I speak of winding down 31 years of legislating. I did this for 13 years in the Wyoming house of representatives, serving in many capacities there-- assistant leader and majority leader, and I enjoyed that very much. One of the great honors of my legislative life was to serve here as assistant majority leader and assistant minority leader. I have enjoyed that leadership role. I commend those who throw themselves into the fray to do that. It is a contact sport.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, the legislation now before this body may be one of the most significant veterans' bills of the last few years. In agreeing to this bill, the Congress will make, under the rubric of health care ``eligibility reform'', changes in the nature of our Nation's health care commitment to veterans that are more far- reaching than any decision since the end of World War II. The Congress faces the issue of setting priorities for VA care because all 26 million veterans are eligible for VA health care. However, VA care is not an entitlement. VA provides as much care to as many veterans as resources allow. Our Nation's historic commitment to veterans is to care for the wounds of war, that is, to care for service-connected disabilities. The VA hospital system was created to fulfill that obligation. And, having created a network of hospitals--now numbering 173--it made good sense to put it to use caring for non-service-connected veterans when space was available. That is how VA got into the business of caring for non- service-connected conditions and veterans. As so often happens, the world changed over time, while VA and the laws that govern VA lagged behind. Over time, the non-service-connected tail began to wag the service-connected dog. Today, 89 percent of VA's medical workload is care for non-service-connected conditions. VA built a hospital system at a time when the terms ``hospital care'' and ``medical care'' were synonymous. Today, American medical care is rapidly moving out of hospitals and into the outpatient arena. VA is also moving in that direction. But, VA's movement has been hampered by statutory ``eligibility'' rules which set priorities reflecting VA's hospital-based infrastructure. VA medical centers are underutilized and VA has excess beds. This fact is reflected in the eligibility rules which give a large number of veterans, perhaps 10 million, priority access to inpatient hospitalization. Outpatient care is the bottleneck in the VA system and only a small number of veterans, about 500,000, have guaranteed access to a complete continuum of care. In addition, 2.2 million veterans receive whatever care is needed for their service-connected disabilities, and other veterans have conditional access to outpatient care. The eligibility rules set by Congress are really a way to ration care by setting priorities. They allow VA to live within its resources. However, they have two major faults: first, they are very complex. Second, they stand modern medical practice on its head by making it easier to provide inpatient care than outpatient care. The easy to describe--and from a medical point of view, desirable-- fix would be to simply eliminate the distinction between inpatient and outpatient care and direct VA to provide care in the most cost- effective therapeutically appropriate manner. There are two ways to do this. We could direct VA to provide complete care--including outpatient--to all of the veterans now ``mandatory'' for inpatient care. However, giving new access to outpatient care, including virtually free prescription drugs and prosthetic devices such as hearing aids, to millions of additional veterans could be very expensive. Or, the Congress could direct VA to provide complete care, but only to the number of veterans who could be served with a budget equal to VA's current funding level. This would make VA's rules simple and allow the most cost-effective care. However, $17.1 billion may not fund a full continuum of care for all of the veterans who are now ``mandatory'' for inpatient care. If the Congress takes this course, we could be accused of ``taking away a veterans' benefit'' from those veterans excluded under the new rules. There are savings to be realized by moving treatment out of hospitals and into less expensive ambulatory care. However, CBO costed unconstrained bills directing that course as being in the billions of dollars. As I read the CBO estimates, improved and expanded health care benefits will draw new veteran patients who do not now use VA care and the cost of their care would more than offset the savings of moving some inpatient care into the outpatient arena. For Federal budget purposes, VA health care is ``discretionary'' rather than ``mandatory'' spending. CBO cost estimates show how much it will cost to provide the care which ``eligibility reform'' proposals would authorize. Since VA health care spending is ``discretionary'', this is not a ``pay-go'' cost for which offsets must be found. However, appropriators are bound by a ceiling on discretionary spending and they could fund the ``promised'' care only if they reduced other discretionary programs, unless eligibility reform legislation imposes its own limits on the obligations of the taxpayer to fund VA health care. VA, the Veterans Service Organizations, (VSO's), and others dispute CBO's analysis. They have stated that if the Congress reforms the rules under which VA operates the resulting efficiencies will pay for, or perhaps even more than pay for, the cost of the additional care. The Veterans' Affairs Committee has taken them at their word. The legislation we now bring before the Senate caps VA medical care spending at $17.250 billion for 1997 and $17.9 billion in 1998. I expect those caps to be extended into the future at a level reflecting any increases in the cost of providing health care and taking into account the declining veteran population. Current eligibility rules do really stand modern medicine on its head by making it easier to treat a veteran on an inpatient basis than in a non-hospital, outpatient setting. Many advocates for eligibility reform point to the need for changes in the law in order to allow VA the freedom to bring itself up to date. I note, however that VA has informed the Committee that it is moving rapidly to a primary care model for medical care under the current rules. VA's Under-Secretary for Health, Dr. Kenneth Kizer,--one splendid administrator--in a May 10, 1996 letter to the Veterans' Committee's distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Rockefeller, deemphasized sound medicine as a reason for seeking ``eligibility reform''. He instead said that he needs eligibility reform in order to instill respect for the law (asserting that VA clinicians feel they must evade rather than follow statutory criteria), in order to provide a mechanism for him to hold the field management accountable to the taxpayers, and to allow him to design an efficient system of care. Madam President, these are all worthy and desirable goals. I support them. But they are goals driven by sound public administration, not a crisis. The legislation now before the Senate will allow the able Dr. Kizer to pursue those goals. This legislation makes some real choices and I expect its enactment to have real consequences. Current priorities for VA health care favor veterans who are service- connected, or poor, or who are members of special groups (former POW's, World War I, exposed to radiation, agent orange, Persian Gulf). Changing these priorities requires a Congressional decision as to the Nation's health care obligation to veterans. When care was rationed by hospital bed availability it was easy to set limits. If we move to ambulatory care, constrained only by funding, and do not want to, or can not, create a new entitlement, it will be necessary to set explicit limits on who will be served. In approving this legislation, the Congress will answer questions as basic as: First, Should VA care for all disability and illness for service- connected veterans, or just the service-connected conditions? If yes, for all service-connected veterans or just some of them? If just some of them, which ones? Second, Should VA serve as a social safety net for ``poor'' veterans? If yes, how poor? Third, Should VA provide the same general medical services as the private sector or should it focus on providing veterans with services not generally available in the private sector (such as long term psychiatric care, or lifetime treatment of spinal cord dysfunction? Madam President, reform even opens the door to the question of VA's role as a direct care provider. Should VA continue to provide care itself or should it fund private sector care for eligible veterans? Madam President, I would like to take a moment to describe the eligibility reform provisions of the bill and then discuss how the bill answers the questions this issue puts before the Congress and the implications of some of those answers. First, and most importantly, the bill eliminates the distinction between inpatient and outpatient care. VA is directed to provide hospital care and medical services in the most clinically appropriate setting for the veterans it treats. However, and this is important, the fully discretionary nature of eligibility for nursing home care remains unchanged. In addition, VA is required to maintain special programs (such as treatment for spinal cord dysfunction, blind rehabilitation, amputation, and mental illness) at least at the current level. On a per capita basis, these services are expensive to provide and it is not the intent of the Committee to allow VA to reduce them in order to pay for other kinds of routine care. This decision means that VA will be forced to reduce the number of veterans it treats for routine conditions and diseases in order to sustain its effort for the unique services it provides. In many cases, VA is a national leader for these services and, in this regard, VA is truly a national asset. Second, the legislation does not create an entitlement to health care for veterans. Funding for veterans' health care has always been considered discretionary spending and the benefits provided by this bill are explicitly subject to the availability of appropriations. As I noted earlier, the amount of appropriations authorized is capped at about the current level of effort, $17.25 billion for 1997 and $17.9 billion for 1998. Third, VA is directed to manage access to its health care system by enrolling veterans according to the following priorities: First, veterans with service-connected disabilities evaluated 50 percent and greater. Second, veterans with service-connected disabilities evaluated at 30 percent and 40 percent disabling. Third, former POW's and veterans with 10 percent and 20 percent service-connected disabilities. Fourth, catastrophically disabled veterans and veterans in receipt of increased non-service-connected disability pension because they are housebound or in need of the aid and attendance of another person to accomplish the activities of daily life. Fifth, veterans unable to defray the cost of medical care, as prescribed by VA in regulation. Sixth, all other veterans in the so-called ``core'' group including veterans of WWI, and veterans with a priority for care based on presumed environmental exposure. Seventh, all other veterans. VA will be authorized to establish subdivisions for enrollment within priority groups. 1997 and 1998 will be a transition period with enrollment required for treatment after September 30, 1998. VA will, of course, continue to treat service-connected conditions (and veteran service-connected 50 percent and higher) without regard to enrollment. Other veterans will need to be enrolled if they are to receive VA care and VA will enroll only the number of veterans it will be able to treat with the resources available to it. Madam President, this bill will change the way VA does business and it has the potential to change the characteristics of the veterans in our States who will have a realistic expectation of receiving VA care. Veterans with non-compensable service-connected disabilities will no longer have an automatic priority for care. However, by giving a high priority for enrollment to all veterans with compensable service- connected disabilities we will create a population of 2.2 million veterans who can expect VA to provide a complete continuum of care, including such services as free or virtually free prescriptions, which are not covered by Medicare. If this expansion of services draws large numbers of these veterans to the VA system, then veterans with a low priority for care, including the low-income veterans who now make up a large proportion of VA's patients, may not receive full care. The alternative to this would have been to give a low priority to veterans with minor service-connected disabilities, but that option was not acceptable to the members negotiating the legislation. This outcome is made more likely by the decision to freeze VA's level of effort in its special, but expensive, services. A possible outcome of this bill will be a VA system that primarily treats service-connected veterans for their non-service-connected conditions and veterans whose disabilities or illnesses make them candidates for treatment in one of VA's specialized programs. Of course, this outcome will not come about if VA and the Veterans Service Organizations are correct and the efficiencies this bill will allow VA to realize are adequate to pay for the additional services provided to veterans newly attracted to the VA system. We will see veterans turned away if the Congressional Budget Office and General Accounting Office are correct and liberalized rules lead to dramatic numbers of new veterans seeking free VA care. Madam President, I also ask my colleagues to be aware of the effect of the increased VA efficiencies necessary if it is to continue to treat its current low income patients. Because VA's resources will remain constrained, we can expect VA to accelerate the already underway process of reevaluating the desirability of continuing to support underutilized and inefficient ``infrastructure''. In a word, we will see some hospitals closed and mission changes for many others. To his clear credit, VA's Under Secretary for Health, Dr. Ken Kizer, has already made more progress in this direction than any other Under Secretary or Chief Medical Director in my time in Congress. And, I believe he would continue that process with or without this legislation. He deserves our highest praise for that. However, I think it safe to predict that every unpopular decision to close a hospital, or limit or redirect a service, will be attributed to this legislation. Since those changes will be the very changes needed to transform VA from a 1945 system of hospitals into a twenty-first century health care system, we should thank those who often point their fingers in our direction--for giving us the credit. If Veterans' Service Organizations in our States voice complaints about the outcome of this legislation, we should remind them of the old saying about being careful what you ask for because you may get it! Madam President, this amendment goes beyond reform of the rules governing access to VA medical care, and I will take a few minutes to summarize some of the major provisions for the benefit of my colleagues. It extends VA's authority to treat Persian Gulf veterans with disabling symptoms, but for which no disease can be diagnosed. It also extends to December 31, 1998 VA's authority to provide health examinations to the families of Persian Gulf veterans. This authority originally ended September 30, 1996, but unless the deadline is extended, delays in putting the program into effect would result in a substantially shorter time frame for VA to provide these exams than was contemplated by the Congress when the authority was originally enacted. In addition, it extends VA's authority to care for veterans presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange or radiation, and also takes a necessary step to exclude from that treatment authority those diseases for which there is evidence that exposure is not the cause. The amendment, authorizes the construction of 18 major construction projects. I am pleased that we have made the turn away from VA's past emphasis on the construction of inpatient hospital facilities and are beginning to expand the proportion of scarce resources allocated to ambulatory care. I urge my successors to reenforce this shift in emphasis as ambulatory care is the bottleneck in the VA system and the ``eligibility reform'' provisions of this bill will bring VA even more veterans seeking care on an ambulatory care basis. The bill authorizes ambulatory care projects in Honolulu, HI ($43 m), Brockton, MA ($13.5 m); Shreveport, LA ($25 m); Lyons, NJ ($21.1 m); Tomah, WI ($12.7 m); Asheville, NC ($26.3 m); Temple, TX: ($9.8 m); Tucson, AZ ($35.5 m); and Leavenworth, KS ($27.75 m). In addition, it authorizes patient environment improvement projects in Lebanon, PA ($9.5 m); Marion, IL: ($11.5 m); Omaha, Neb. ($7.7 m); Pittsburgh, PA: ($17.4 m); Waco, TX ($26 m); Marion, IN ($17.3 m); Perry Point, MD ($15.1 m); and Salisbury, NC ($18.2 m). It also authorizes correction of seismic deficiencies at Palo Alto, CA ($20.8 m) and leases of outpatient clinics in Allentown, PA ($2.159 m); Beaumont, TX ($1.940 m); Boston, MA ($2.358 m); San Antonio, TX ($2.256 m), (also includes a VBA office); Toledo, OH ($2.223 m); and a parking facility in Cleveland, OH ($1.3 m). In other construction provisions, the amendment directs VA to submit an annual report with a 5-year strategic plan showing each of the 22 Veterans Integrated Service Network's (VISN) facility needs and plans for meeting those needs, and a listing of VA's 20 highest priority construction projects with the category, priority score and priority rank for each. Additional information will also be required in the prospectus for each project, especially on projected workload and costs. The threshold separating minor from major construction increased from $3 million to $4 million. The ``grandfathered'' authorization of projects already in the works when the authorization requirement was established will be eliminated. Future construction projects will require an affirmative authorization by the Congress. VA will also be required to give the Congress 30 days notice before obligating more than $500,000 for advance planning. Eligibility reform will call upon VA to break out of the mold created by its historic dependence on its physical infrastructure. This amendment will assist in that process by expanding the types of providers with which, as well as the types of services for which, VA would be able to enter into sharing agreements. The amendment would also allow VA to use a simplified procedure for complying with Federal procurement processes when contracting with commercial providers. The amendment would also make permanent VA's authority for CHAMPUS sharing agreements, an authority now expiring September 30, 1996. The ``notice and wait'' period for VA reorganizations is reduced from 90 to 45 days, 30 of which must occur while Congress is in session. The bar on VA contracting for patient care (which is now suspended through 1998) is deleted, with a requirement that VA report to Congress in advance of any contracting proposal. The amendment has significant provisions relating to medical services for women veterans. It would require accreditation of VA mammography programs and require VA to adopt and enforce mammography quality control and quality assurance standards. Since VA is already in compliance with these provisions, their enactment will have the effect of codifying VA's current policy and practice. In addition, VA would be directed to survey its facilities in order to identify privacy deficiencies and to incorporate a correction plan into its construction planning process. VA would also be directed to assess the use, and barriers to use, of VA services by women veterans and to report on its findings, recommendations, and the correctional steps it has taken in response to those findings. The Readjustment Counseling Service program administered through community based ``Vet Centers'' would be updated. Mandatory counseling eligibility would be limited to combat theater veterans (with nontheater Vietnam-era veterans ``grandfathered'' in if they become Vet Center clients before January 1, 2000). The Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans would be given statutory recognition. VA would be directed to report to the Congress on the feasibility and desirability of collocating Vet Centers and outpatient clinics or providing some medical services at Vet Centers. VA would be directed to establish up to five Mental Illness Education Research and Clinical Centers [MIRECCs]. The centers established would be chosen from proposals through a peer review process. They would be located in various geographic regions, at sites linking tertiary care and primarily psychiatric VA Medical Centers [VAMCs]. In addition, the Committee on Care of Severely Chronically Mentally Ill Veterans would be made a statutory committee and VA would be required to forward its reports to the Congress. VA would be directed to conduct research evaluating the most cost effective and efficient way to provide hospice care to veterans, with a report due to the Congress by April 1, 1998. VA would be authorized to make construction grants to modify State homes to provide adult day care and to pay per diem to State homes for veterans receiving adult day care. VAMCs would be allowed a new window of opportunity to create research corporations for the purpose of accepting gifts and grants from the private sector for funding VA medical research. This authority would sunset on December 31, 2000. These corporations would be required to report to Congress on the sources and expenditures of their funds. The Office of the Under Secretary for Health be required to be staffed so as to ensure that the Under Secretary has the benefit of the expertise and policy guidance of: First, VA's specialized programs (e.g. blind rehabilitation, spinal cord dysfunction, mental illness, etc.) and, second, readjustment counseling. The amendment would also eliminate the current requirement that the Associate Deputy Under Secretary be an MD. In addition, the amendment would eliminate current ``moonlighting'' restrictions imposed on full time VA health care professionals. The recovery of special pay incentives would be suspended for doctors and dentists while they pursue additional residency training if they return to VA employment. VA would also be given more flexibility in payment arrangements for residents and interns. And, finally, land transfers at VAMCs Milwaukee and Cheyenne would be approved and the VA Medical Center at Mountain Home, TN, would be named after Congressman James H. Quillen. That name change would take effect at the beginning of the 105th Congress or when Congressman Quillen ceases to be a Member of Congress. Madam President, this amendment is a major legislative accomplishment. And, as we all know, such an accomplishment requires hard work on the part of everyone involved. We would not be where we are today without the active and sincere involvement and interest of the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Jay Rockefeller. In addition to recognizing his hard work and that of the Committee's minority staff director and chief counsel, Jim Gottlieb, I must acknowledge the tireless effort and broad expertise of Bill Brew. Bill Brew took me by the hand and ``showed me the ropes'' when I first came to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs as a junior member of the committee. Now years later, and when I am in the last days of my chairmanship of the committee, I find that Bill is still indispensable to the committee's operations. They don't make many like Bill, and veterans everywhere are very fortunate that he has chosen to put his talent to work on the committee staff. And then my dear friend, Sonny Montgomery. What a man. The present ranking minority member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sometimes it seems to us all that there hasn't been a piece of veterans' legislation that has gone through this body since before the war (and I'll let you decide which war) that didn't carry the fingerprints of that fine and noble gentleman. He is leaving the legislative arena this year. But we shall all remember the unquenchable flame powering his singular focus on the men and women whose uniformed service has kept this Nation free for so long. And he has played an unmatched role in the development and enactment of the amendment now before this body. He is a very dear friend. Chairman Bob Stump of the House committee takes second place to no one when it comes to veterans' legislation and so it has been in the evolution of this bill. He is steady and courageous and I am proud to be his friend also. I thank him for his constructive role and acknowledge his indispensable efforts to transform the commitment of the Congress to America's veterans into effective and generous benefits and services. Madam President, I suspect that Congressmen Stump and Montgomery would be the first to acknowledge their debt to their dedicated staff. Carl Commentator, Kingston Smith and JoAnn Webb of the majority staff, and Pat Ryan and Ralph Ibsen of the minority staff have worked tirelessly to implement the policy direction of their bosses. And lastly, Tom Harvey, my chief counsel and staff director, and his crew on the Senate Veterans' Committee staff have done yeoman service over the last 2 years. Tom has long been the absolutely indispensable voice of reason to whom I have turned for advice so many times when the topic turned to veterans. And he has ``saved my bacon'' many a time, especially with the Veterans' service organizations. A more loyal, savvy, protective friend I could never have. For the last 2 years, I have slept less fitfully knowing he is in full charge of the committee staff. Chris Yoder, as a fine professional staff member, has been responsible for health care issues, and has shepherded this amendment from it's origin as a cluster of ideas on a ``to do'' list through the legislative product now before this body. Bill Tuerk, the committee's general counsel, has played an indispensable and strong role in the development of this amendment and has committed more time and energy to its enactment than it is reasonable to ask of someone unless they work for love of country as well as for sustenance. Their efforts were well supported by Deputy Staff Director Dave Balland, Dat Tran, Bill Foster, Stephanie Foster, Dr. Sally Satel, Dennis Doherty, Rosie Ducosin, Linda Reamy, and Dolores Moorehead. All very wonderful people. The Members of this body, as well as America's 26 million veterans, are all deeply indebted to all of them for their consistent hard work and commitment. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation and I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that a joint explanatory statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2152, a bill to provide benefits for certain children of Vietnam veterans who are born with spina bifida. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated July 25, 1996. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter of the draft legislation.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2151, the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Reduction Assistance Act of 1996'' relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs' authority to offer separation incentives to achieve reductions in employment levels. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated September 11, 1996. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the enclosed analysis of the draft legislation.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2152, a bill to provide benefits for certain children of Vietnam veterans who are born with spina bifida. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated July 25, 1996. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter of the draft legislation.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2151, the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Reduction Assistance Act of 1996'' relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs' authority to offer separation incentives to achieve reductions in employment levels. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated September 11, 1996. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the enclosed analysis of the draft legislation.