John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, we have five times previously been denied this, in spite of the House vote, in spite of the President's endorsement, in spite of the overwhelming support of the American people. I ask Members of this body to vote to give us the opportunity to make the progress necessary to protect 100 percent of the Social Security surpluses so they can be used to strengthen, and provide integrity to, the Social Security system. I thank the Senator from Michigan for this opportunity to speak, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes. I ask to be informed at the conclusion of the 6 minutes. By agreement, I believe Senator Collins was to have 6 minutes at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Republican Members for their effort on assembling a very good plan. It is a plan designed to protect the interests of individuals who receive their health care through HMOs. It is designed so that, if the HMO denies a particular kind of treatment as not being necessary, there is an appeals process, and the appeals process is first to the HMO, asking them to correct a faulty decision. But if the HMO does not respond constructively, there is an appeal to an independent appellate authority, an independent appeals officer. I wanted to make sure the Republican bill's effort to have this appeals process, which gives people the chance to make sure they are treated fairly, has the right enforcement to it. The right enforcement, in my judgment, is to send people to treatment, not to send people to trial. It would be possible to have a big legal arrangement where the person does not get treatment, they die, and the relatives then go to court. Instead of getting treatment, you get a trial and you may get a lot of money, but you have a dead relative. I think it is important to understand this is a health care effort we are waging. So I wanted to do some things to strengthen the enforcement provisions in the Republican proposal which relate to the external review. That is the final appeal to a person outside the HMO, a qualified individual. This is what I think we must do. First of all, we must make sure that the HMO acts promptly. While the Republican bill provides there should be certain designations within 5 days, there is a place where the HMO has to provide the reviewer, or the appeal authority, with the documents of the case. We put in a time limit on that. We put in a stiff penalty for failure to meet that time limit. It simply is saying we will not allow an HMO to drag its feet in order to avoid the review by an independent authority. So I wanted to make sure we had that. Second, I want to make sure the person whose case is being reviewed has the right to present evidence to the appeal authority. I think this is implicit in the Republican bill, but I want it to be explicitly stated that when a person files a review petition, they have the right to say this is the reason you should set aside your judgment; this is the reason you should make a determination that the treatment is appropriate in my case--not only the person but the doctor who made the original decision. And that is important as well, making sure they are involved. Then I want to make sure the person conducting the review of a physician's work would be a qualified physician or would be a person who was qualified to be the same kind of specialist the treating physician was so we would not have some bureaucrat or some individual who was interested in or more well trained, perhaps, in business making judgments about things that were medical. That is provided for in this particular matter. So it makes it clear we want to have the physician doing the kind of assessment in the appellate process. However, I wanted also to make sure we had HMOs willing to carry through on the decision of the appeals process. I thought to myself, what if the patient lost the appeal in the HMO, made the appeal to the external authority--and this can be done very rapidly because the timeframes are tight in this instance, and should be, and we always include even expedited timeframes for medical exigencies-- what if the appeal goes to the external appeal authority and then the HMO refuses to provide the treatment in spite of the determination by the external authority? One option in that situation, I suppose, would be to say you go to court. But if you are sick and you call an ambulance, you expect the ambulance driver to take you to the hospital, not to the courtroom. What we need for people is not to be provided with a trial; we need people to be provided with treatment. What we have done in this amendment is simply this: If you had this opportunity for an expeditious appeal that has gone through the HMO and the external authority, the external appeal officer is to write in any appellate decision a date by which treatment is to be commenced. If treatment is not commenced as of that date, the system converts to a fee-for-service system so the patient has the right to get whatever service is needed at the expense of the provider which failed to provide it in accordance with the directive of the appellate officer. Furthermore, it provides a penalty, an immediate $10,000 payment to the patient--not to the Government, not to the Department of Labor, not to an administrating bureaucracy--to the patient for having been dislocated and for having arranged for other things. The business of the HMO is to arrange for medical services, and this is a plan which simply says we are going to deliver to people medical services. We are not going to deliver them somewhere else. We do not want you to end up with a good lawsuit; we want you to end up with good health care. And if the HMO does not provide the health care in accordance with the appeal, then it is time we turn loose the patient who paid the premium, and that patient has the right to access the care of his or her choice to get it done, and the responsibility of payment for that falls upon the noncomplying health care provider in the HMO. That makes sense. Instead of getting a good lawsuit because you did not get health treatment and you got sick, you get good treatment. It seems to me that should be the objective to have. That is basically what we have done. We have made sure there are time lines.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield myself 8 minutes, and I ask to be notified at the conclusion of 8 minutes, and at the conclusion of my time, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. ASHCROFT. How much time does the Senator desire?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am very sorry. I didn't intend to deprive him of that opportunity. When I came in, I failed to observe him in the Chamber. I am happy to have him go ahead.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, that is kind of you, and I yield myself an extra 30 seconds. We made sure there are enforceable time lines. We have made sure physicians will be the appeals officers on the work of physicians. We have made sure the responsibility to deliver the process to the appellate appeals officers, both internal and external, is expedited. And we have made sure, in the event of noncompliance, the patient gets treatment. We convert the system to fee for service, and you can access treatment on your own. It is with that in mind that I am pleased to conclude my remarks and yield to the Senator from Florida 5 minutes for his remarks.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, we have a great opportunity, which we will capitalize on this evening, by voting for this measure which has been the result of hard work by a team and task force of individuals dedicated to improving the health care of Americans and access to health care. I am grateful for it. I totally reject the notion that this is a victory for the status quo. One person can make this a victory for the status quo. Bill Clinton can. He could veto this. I do not believe we should think that he will. I believe we should continue to work and present him with this great opportunity to lift the status of health care of Americans. One area I was concerned was that people ought to get the right treatment from HMOs and that, if they have a disagreement with an HMO, they ought to be able to settle that disagreement in a way that gets them treatment. So an appeals process was established for an internal appeal by the patient and an external appeal. I sought to improve the bill. It did not include this provision, but I offered an amendment which said, if the external appeal agreed with the patient and said that the patient deserved the treatment and ordered the HMO to do it, and if the HMO would not provide the treatment--we have amended this bill now so the person is eligible to go and get the treatment elsewhere and charge the HMO, and the HMO that wrongfully refused the treatment to the patient has to give a $10,000 penalty payment to the patient. This really gives the patient what the patient needs, health care. The Democratic proposal sends the patient to court. How disappointed would you be, as a person, if you called for an ambulance and you found them taking you to the court instead of to the hospital? We do not want to end up with a dead relative and a good law case. We want to end up with good treatment, and that is what this bill will do. It has a strong set of enforcement provisions to respect the rights of individuals, and if the HMO fails to comply with that enforcement, we send the people to the hospital, not to the courtroom.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for her kind remarks and for allowing me to speak on this important issue. Americans are now paying taxes at a higher rate than ever before. The burden and cost of the government are more, and the Federal Government is responsible for the overwhelming lion's share. As a matter of fact, we are not just responsible for the Federal taxes, because we have mandated so many programs on State and local governments we are responsible for a lot of what they are taxing people. So we are being taxed at the highest rates in history--at the highest rates in history. Now we announced, in spite of that, we are paying more in those taxes than it costs to run Government. We are paying more in than it costs to fund the programs we are getting. If you go to a grocery store and you are buying $8 worth of groceries and you give them a $10 bill, you are paying more than it costs for the service and they give you a couple of dollars in change. There is a stunning debate in Washington. We are debating over whether or not to give people the change back. They are paying more than is required for the programs they have requested, and we are debating whether or not we are going to give them the change back. We ought to give the money back. They own it. They have overpaid. No. 1, we are paying the highest taxes in history. No. 2, those taxes pay for more than what our programs cost; therefore, we are overpaying. No. 3, we ought to refund that overpayment to the American people. I submit among those who ought to be the first in line to get money back are those who have been particularly abused, those who have been the subject of discrimination, those who have been the subject of wrongful taking of the money by Government. That is where you come to this class of people who are not normally thought of as being a special class. They are married people. Forty-two percent of all the married people in the United States end up penalized for being married. That is 21 million families. Mr. President, 21 million families pay an average of over $100 a month--that is $1,400 a year--because we have what is called the marriage penalty tax. Before we decide on tax relief for the population generally, let's take some of these gross inequities out of the system, especially inequities that target one of the most important, if not the most important, components of the community we call America--our families. Our families are the most important department of social services, the most important department of education. The most important fundamental component of the culture is the family. It is where we will either succeed or fail in the next century. Our Tax Code has been focusing on those families and has been saying we are going to take from you more than we would take from anybody else. This idea of penalizing people for being married is a bankrupt idea, and it is time to take the marriage penalty part of this law and administer the death penalty to the marriage tax. I say it is time for us to end the marriage penalty. This will mean a substantial improvement in income for people who have been suffering discrimination because they are married. It is time for us to end the marriage penalty in the tax law.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his outstanding leadership on this issue. Today the Senate will vote for the fifth time to stop filibusters on legislation to protect Social Security trust funds. It is time for us to stop, to end the delay. It is time for us to align ourselves with the American people who overwhelmingly want us to protect the money they put into the Social Security trust fund and to reserve it for Social Security payments. We should pass this bill so protecting Social Security will be the law of the land. It is time to build a tough law, a firewall if you will, between politicians' desires to spend and the Social Security trust fund. There is no addiction more pervasive in this city than the spending of money. It is a tough habit to break, but we are in a position to do so. We are in a position to say we can manage our affairs without this money; let us make a commitment forever to break this habit of spending the Social Security trust funds. President Clinton's proposed budget in January would have spent $158 billion in Social Security surplus over the next 5 years out of the trust fund, but, thank goodness, this last week President Clinton announced that he does not want to do that. That concept is no longer his plan. Instead of spending that $158 billion over 5 years in other projects, he said he wants to reserve it for Social Security--every penny for Social Security. ``Social Security taxes should be saved for Social Security, period.'' What a tremendous concept. It is one which we have been working on and we have been working to pass. The President has announced his support for it. It is a general concept which the House of Representatives has supported. In its recent vote a couple weeks ago, the House voted 416-12. We look for bipartisan things to do in this city, things that unite us instead of divide us, things that mobilize the American people, things that find common objectives and common ground. Here is an item the American people overwhelmingly endorse. Here is an item on which the House of Representatives really reflects the American people, 416- 12. That is an overwhelming vote. And the President of the United States endorses the lockbox. What is interesting is that the President's endorsement is of the lockbox. He just did not say we should not spend Social Security as a general concept or a general idea or a principle by which we operate Government. When we talk about a lockbox, we are talking about institutionalizing the prohibition, not just saying this is something we hope to do in future years. By saying we want to build a lockbox, we have to build a structure for protecting Social Security, and that is something the President has said he wants--a structure, a lockbox, something that keeps us from making these expenditures. For the past 6 months, this Congress has been devoted to protecting all the Social Security surplus. In January, congressional Republicans began working to ensure that Congress would protect every penny of the surplus. In March, Senator Domenici and I introduced S. 502, called the Protect Social Security Benefits Act, which would have instituted a point of order preventing Congress from spending any Social Security dollars for non-Social Security purposes. What does a point of order mean? A point of order means that if there is a point of order and someone tries to do it, the Chair, the Presiding Officer, can say it is out of order. Most Americans have been part of some kind of meeting somewhere when someone brought something up that was out of order. The gavel goes down, and the person presiding over the meeting says: We are not going to discuss that; that is not a part of what we do. There is a point of order against it. It is out of order, and you move on to something else. That is the way we propose to treat proposals that will spend the Social Security surplus. We will simply say: We don't do that; it is against our rules; it is out of order, we will move on to something else. That was S. 502. Then in April, together with Senator Domenici, the Senate passed a budget resolution that did not spend any of the Social Security surpluses for the next decade. Included in the resolution was language endorsing the idea of locking away the Social Security surpluses, sort of a rules of the Senate lockbox but not a statutory lockbox. A statutory lockbox, of course, would bind the House, the Senate, and the President. This language passed the Senate with unanimous approval. Also in April, Senators Abraham, Domenici, and I offered the Social Security lockbox amendment which would have added executive responsibilities to the congressional requirement to protect the Social Security surpluses. By ``executive responsibilities,'' we were really saying the President had to submit a budget that did not invade the Social Security surplus as part of the President's plan. The Senate has voted on the Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft plan three times so far, and I believe we will agree to the motion to proceed today. But until today, the Senate has filibustered, has said we will not go there. Frankly, the President of the United States wants to go there, the American people want to go there. The President had the courage to reverse his position, first saying, ``I want to spend some of that money,'' then saying, ``No, we should reserve every cent for Social Security, period.'' On May 26, the House of Representatives, reflecting, I believe, the people of America--and that is really what we are supposed to do in many respects; that is why we are sent here--overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1259, Congressman Herger's measure to protect the surpluses. The vote in that case, as I have already mentioned, was 416-12. That means for every 100 votes in favor of the measure, there were only 3 votes against the measure. Mr. President, 100 to 3 is a pretty strong margin. That is a bipartisan consensus. This reflects the will of the people. On June 10, Democrats in the Senate blocked the Herger measure. They voted against moving even to consider it. It is time we stop this kind of parliamentary maneuver. We all know what the will of the American people is. We know what the clear statement of the President of the United States is. We know what we have done on five previous occasions, refusing to discuss it. Today we should vote to move forward on this issue. The lockbox will accomplish an important goal: Protect Social Security taxes. It will reserve those taxes for Social Security, and Social Security alone, so that when someday those who need Social Security want to call on this Government for the payment of their benefit, the Government will be stronger, having less debt, having more discipline, having a greater capacity to meet its obligations and to honor the commitments made under Social Security. Those who say they want to protect Social Security should join us in our efforts to save every dime--no, let me correct that--every penny, every cent of this money for Social Security's future beneficiaries. This lockbox is a way to make this happen. Congress has been moving to create a Social Security lockbox this entire year. President Clinton has now stated he agrees with us, and I welcome the support of the President and Senate Democrats in finishing the Nation's business in supporting the toughest possible lockbox measure, one that protects not 20 percent, not 40 percent, not 60 percent, not 80 percent, not 99 percent, but 100 percent of the Social Security surpluses, protects them so they are available to meet the responsibilities of the Social Security system. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time of those in support of the motion.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for accommodating me from the time reserved for his control. I am glad for the opportunity to stand in the Senate today to honor Rabbi Morris Sherer, who passed away on May 17 last year. Today, I believe the very best way to pay tribute to Rabbi Sherer's memory is to celebrate his inspiring accomplishments. When Rabbi Sherer became the executive vice president of Agudath Israel in America in 1941, the organization was but a small group with but a few members. Rabbi Sherer transformed Agudath Israel from the small organization that it was in 1941 to a respected and influential force in the culture and community we call America in both our political and religious life. Rabbi Sherer's success came primarily from two strong leadership characteristics or character traits for which he was most respected. One was that he was not one just to talk about something. He would do something. He was an activist. Second, he knew getting something done required more than just activism or motivation or inspiration. It required persistence. He could stay with a task until there was an achievement. One often cited example of Rabbi Sherer's activism occurred almost immediately after he became a part of the leadership of Agudath Israel. During Hitler's reign of terror, when all too many here and around the world remained silent about the unspeakable atrocities committed against the Jews in Eastern Europe, Rabbi Sherer spoke and insisted that action was necessary. While Rabbi Sherer attempted to get others involved in his efforts, he always understood that he must take the initiative and lead, and whether others would be involved or not was not the criterion for his own involvement. He knew that real leadership required the ability and willingness to stand alone. He knew he could not simply wait for someone else to do what he believed should be done. With his still tiny organization, he sent shipments of food to Jews suffering under the terrible injustices of Hitler's regime, and he helped many to escape to gain refuge here in the United States of America. Not only was Rabbi Sherer a man of action, but he was a man of persistence. He followed through. When the war ended, he didn't forget about the brothers and sisters who still remained in the ruins of Europe. Under his leadership, Agudath Israel shipped food and religious articles to Jews in displaced persons camps and he helped those who wanted to emigrate. Rabbi Sherer's story, as we all know, continues in this same line and his philosophy of activism and persistence guided Agudath Israel in America for decades. He fought on behalf of Jews endangered behind the Iron Curtain, those who were endangered in Syria, Iran, and anywhere in the world where he saw that injustice was an imposition upon the liberties of individuals and discrimination that deprived individuals of their opportunity to reach the potential that God placed within. He brought this attitude with him as he ascended to the presidency of Agudath Israel of America in 1963 and to the chairmanship of Agudath Israel World Organization in 1980. In all of these roles, Rabbi Sherer demonstrated the unique talent, unique character that provided him with the capacity to unite people from disparate backgrounds and interests. While this was partially a result of his contagious warm personality and charisma, there was something deeper, too. People knew him as a man of integrity. This was rare ore, precious metal to be mined out of the character of this great leader. Though they might have disagreed adamantly with his views, they had to respect the purity of his position, his sincerity and his honesty. This loyalty and integrity often placed him at odds with or at other times in alliances with unlikely groups. This, however, was Rabbi Sherer's great charm. This is why he was so highly respected. He was loyal and passionate about ideas and truth, never letting political maneuvering get in the way of his ultimate mission. I am pleased to be on the Senate floor to honor Rabbi Sherer's memory. He taught us that in the face of injustice we must act; in the face of failure, we must persist. When the battle is over, he taught us there is still a war to fight: to continue to bind up those who had been injured, those who had been separated, and those who had suffered. Finally, he taught us that there is a way to achieve success and ultimately respect. It is not by trying to appease all sides but by standing firm in one's convictions and holding fast to one's beliefs. That is the legacy of Rabbi Moshe Sherer. That is what he passed on to Agudath Israel and to all here today who respect his wondrous accomplishment and his faith. I am delighted and personally privileged to have the opportunity from this podium, in this body, to extend my condolences again to Rabbi Sherer's wife, children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, and to recommend his stature, his principle, his integrity, his persistence, and his activism as models to all Americans. I thank the Senator from New York for according me this time and this privilege. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. I am delighted to commend the Senator from Georgia for his outstanding remarks. He is right about giving people a chance to spend their own money in the way they choose to spend it. So much of our so-called tax relief from time to time is given in ways that try to coach people that they should have it the way we want it done. Freedom is the ability to spend one's own resources the way one particularly wants to spend them. So I am delighted with his remarks. I rise today in support of Congress' plan to provide over $778 billion in tax cuts over the next 10 years. The President has already announced that the budget surplus will be larger than expected. This onbudget surplus is another name for a tax overpayment. Talk about a budget surplus. It means we are collecting more than we need. Having collected more than we need from the people who worked hard, the least we could do would be to give it back to them. When you go into a business and hand a $10 bill to the clerk for a $7 item, they don't say: Well, we are going to increase your spending level. We are going to throw in four extra pairs of shoelaces and a can of polish, if you are in a shoe store. They say: No, here is your change. This is your money. You have overpaid. That is where we are. In the days ahead, Congress will be deciding what to do. Are we going to try to find more ways to spend the money the people have earned or are we going to say our faith is in families; we are going to focus the resources of this country where we have our faith, and that is in the private sector and in families? That is what has made America great. Or are we going to say our real faith is in bureaucracy; we are going to take more of this money and fund bureaucracy? I think it is time for us to think about funding families, not funding bureaucracies; funding Main Street, not funding Washington, DC. When we have challenges in this country, I think all of us know they aren't going to be solved by government. As terrible as Littleton, CO, was and is, the real challenge is a cultural challenge. We need strong families with the right values. We don't need stronger government bureaucracies. If bureaucracies could have solved the Littleton situation and many other challenges, we would have expected to have no challenges by now because we have great bureaucracies. We have more bureaucracy in America than ever before, but we have greater problems. Instead of the high tax load that really almost forces the second parent to be in the workforce, maybe we ought to think about allowing people to keep some of the money they earn so they don't have to have both parents working and competing with the needs children have for the shaping, the nurturing, the developing, the teaching, and the parenting that is so necessary. This year, the average American will have to work 173 days just to pay for government. This includes the burdens of Federal taxes, State taxes, and local taxes. We pay more in taxes than at any other time in history. Some people say: Well, there was a year or two in the Second World War. I dispute that. I don't think they are counting local taxes as well. Some people say: What does the Congress have to do with local taxes? Very frankly, a good bit of the load of taxes at the State and local level is a result of Federal mandates, the Federal Government wanting to force things to be done by government and the bureaucracy, not having the courage to charge for it but just saying to the States: You must get this done. It is sort of similar to going in to order something without paying for it. We have done that at the Federal level. It is a shame, but it has happened. It is time for us to say that we need to allow some of the individuals who have built this great Nation to enjoy the fruits of their own labors. When we have overcollected, we have taken more than we need. We have a surplus. Let us give the folks the change back instead of trying to force them to buy more bureaucracy, which they didn't want, didn't order, and don't need. They do need the capacity in families. According to a Congressional Research Service study, the surplus means that the average household will be paying $5,000 more in taxes over the next 10 years than the government needs. Well, let's just let the American people have some of that money back. I want to go quickly to one of the most important things we can do to correct a serious error of our Tax Code. For a long time, Members of this body have understood that our Tax Code penalizes people for being married. The way the Tax Code is administered, there is what is called a marriage penalty for people who enter the durable, lasting relationship of marriage, which is the place where children learn and where society and the social order, our culture, renews itself--in durable, lasting, committed marriages. They get taxed more heavily, very frequently, than if they were not married. That is called the marriage penalty. I may not be one for lots of little nuances in the Tax Code, but it is time for us to take this massive prejudice out of the Tax Code that charges people elevated rates because they are doing the thing government most needs. If government is to promote safety and the stability of the community so people can reach the potential that God has placed within them--and that is what I think government is for--the family does that more effectively and in concert with government better than anybody else. If anything, marriage ought to be the subject of a subsidy, not the pernicious recipient of a penalty that punishes people for being married. I know Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Senator from Texas, has focused for years on this idea. I have been one who has stood up to say that we ought to focus on this idea. If we have an opportunity to let people keep some of what they earn, let us stop punishing people for the persistent, durable commitment of dedicated marriage that is fundamental to the success of this society in the next century. That would be a tremendous first step. We all know that we are paying more in taxes than ever before. We have watched, as the tax burden has gone up, families struggle to meet their responsibilities, moms and dads trying to juggle how they can accommodate their schedules and still raise a family. Finally, the second parent goes into the workforce to make ends meet because government demands so substantially. Let us give the American family the kind of tax relief that allows families to make America great again and to make their own decisions. It is with that in mind that I think one of the tremendous opportunities we have is the opportunity to abolish the marriage penalty in the tax law. I urge my colleagues, as we consider our responsibilities, to relieve American marriages of this pernicious penalty which punishes people for doing that which we all need. I thank the Senator from Minnesota and the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a star print of S. 606, as reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, be printed to correct an error.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today is a great day for American taxpayers and especially for senior citizens. I come to the floor to welcome the President's endorsement of the lockbox plan to protect the Social Security surplus. I am gratified to hear that he now agrees with our congressional effort to protect every dollar of the current Social Security surplus for future obligations that the Social Security trust fund has to America's retirees. I believe the President's statement today can lead to a bipartisan agreement to protect Social Security. It is a fact that the President's statement today reverses his earlier policy to use $158 billion out of the Social Security trust fund surpluses over the next 5 years to finance increased spending. So this is welcome news. It is good news. It provides us with the basis for an agreement and the achievement of a public good--to help American citizens, particularly older Americans, in their concerns about their retirement. When the President first submitted his budget proposal that included spending, instead of saving, a portion of the Social Security surplus, congressional Republicans, in the House and in the Senate, began working to ensure that every dollar--not just some of the money but every dollar--of the forthcoming Social Security surplus was reserved for one thing--for Social Security. In March, Senator Domenici and I introduced S. 502, the Protect Social Security Benefits Act, which would have instituted a point of order preventing Congress from spending any Social Security dollars for non-Social Security purposes. In April, under the strong direction of Senator Domenici, the Senate passed a budget resolution that did not spend any of the Social Security surpluses for the next decade, and included in the resolution was language endorsing the idea of locking away the Social Security surpluses. This language passed with the unanimous approval of the Senate. Also in April, Senators Abraham and Domenici and I introduced the Social Security lockbox amendment which would have added executive responsibilities to the congressional requirement to protect Social Security surpluses. That executive responsibility would have demanded that the President submit budgets that did not invade the Social Security surplus as a means of covering deficits in the rest of Government. The Senate has voted on the Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft plan three times, and the measure has yet to win a single Democratic vote. On May 26, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1259. That was Congressman Herger's measure to protect the surpluses of Social Security. It did so in a bipartisan vote in the House, a vote of 416 to 12. On June 10, the Democrats in the Senate blocked the Herger measure as well, just as they had blocked the measures which had been proposed in this body. But the House, in a bipartisan way, voted 416 to 12. These repeated votes on a Social Security lockbox demonstrate congressional Republicans' dedication to protecting every dollar of the projected Social Security surpluses and using them to shore up the Social Security system. It is essential to protect Social Security so we can ensure the long-term viability of America's most vital social program. We must restore the public's confidence that money paid into Social Security will be paid out only for Social Security benefits. The lockbox would accomplish this important goal. Over the next 5 years, Social Security taxes will bring in an estimated $776 billion in surpluses. Those who say they want to protect Social Security should join us in our efforts to create this lockbox so that every dime, every cent, of this money for Social Security, paid in for Social Security, will be reserved for Social Security's future beneficiaries. The lockbox is the way to make this happen. The Congress is and has been moving to create a Social Security lockbox for this entire year. The President's staff said yesterday that the President will unveil his own Social Security lockbox proposal. If the President does, indeed, have a plan he wishes to offer, I urge him to bring it to Congress immediately so we can examine it and perhaps even vote on it before the Independence Day district work period for the Congress. If he does not have his own plan, I urge the President to support the existing congressional lockbox proposals, one of which has already passed the House with substantial momentum; 416 to 12 is not a vote to be disregarded. In spite of that, it has been disregarded by those on the other side of the aisle in the Senate. In addition, I ask that the President reach out to his Democratic colleagues, now that he has joined the idea of building a lockbox, and a strong one, to protect Social Security and urge the Democrat Members of the Senate to support efforts to protect Social Security. This is the best way to ensure Social Security's financial integrity for this and future generations. Again, I say that the American people are the winners when the President of the United States announces that he will support the efforts in Congress to protect all of the Social Security surplus, basically changing his position from spending $158 billion over the next 5 years to saying that he wants to stop the raid and no longer cover shortfalls in Federal spending programs by using Social Security surpluses. The President's Rose Garden announcement is welcome news. It is a rosy scenario, if it can be carried out. I urge President Clinton to join us in demonstrating his commitment to Social Security protection by backing the congressional Social Security lockbox, which we have been working so carefully to bring into place, as a means of protecting Social Security taxes that people across America work day after day after day to pay. They should be entitled to look forward to the day when those taxes will come back to them in terms of Social Security retirement benefits.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 162, S. 604.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 29. I further ask that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Moynihan for up to 30 minutes from 10:30 to 11 a.m.; Senator Grams or his designee for up to 60 minutes from the hour of 11 a.m. to 12 p.m.; Senator Specter or his designee for up to 30 minutes beginning at 12 noon.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Further, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes at 2:15 on Tuesday, there be an additional 2 hours of morning business, with Senator Daschle in control of the first 60 minutes and Senator Lott or his designee in control of the second 60 minutes.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. For the information of all Senators, Tuesday, the Senate will convene at 10:30 a.m. and will be conducting a period of morning business to accommodate a number of Senators who wish to make statements and introduce legislation. The Senate is then expected to resume consideration of the pending appropriations bill. Therefore, votes are expected to occur.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield myself as much of the 25 minutes as may be necessary to make my point. I rise today with substantial concern and significant frustration. The pending business before the Senate is the agriculture appropriations bill. But for the second day in a row, it appears that we will not work on this important legislation. Those on the other side of the aisle have said they will not let any legislative work get done until they are able to have, apparently, an unlimited debate on a so- called Bill of Rights for health care patients. Those on the other side claim that they must have a debate on their bill, but that is not the point. What they are really doing is thwarting this body, the Senate, in its constitutional duty to pass appropriations bills so that we can make sure that important components of our Government remain viable and continue to do their job. The agriculture appropriation bill is a very important measure, not just in one State in America but in every State in America. Let me remind all Senators that our responsibility to pass appropriations bills is defined by the U.S. Constitution, which requires ``appropriations made by law''--that means we have to pass them-- ``prior to the expenditure of any money from the Federal Treasury.'' That is article I, section 9. I see nothing in my reading of the Constitution that says the Senate must have unlimited debate on some other issue of interest or that the Senate even has the authority to speak on all the issues between a patient and a doctor. Granted, we have until October 1 to conclude the appropriations process. That seems like a long way off, summer having just started. But I am not sure exactly why we would be dragging our feet now, because I am sure I do not have to remind anybody of what happened last October when we did not do our work early. Congress did not complete its job on time, and the American people are the ones who ended up paying for our irresponsibility with a $20 billion-some so-called emergency appropriation that came when, instead of constitutionally addressing our responsibility on appropriations, the President and a few Members of this body combined to invade the Social Security trust fund for about $22 billion in emergency spending. Members on both sides of the aisle complained bitterly for months about the process and the outcome. Members from both sides pledged to work together to make sure that history did not repeat itself this year. I commend the leadership and the Appropriations Committee for the wonderful start that has been made on the appropriations bills. It is June 24, and the Senate has passed four appropriations bills and has five more ready for the floor. If those on the other side ever allow us to return to our duties, we can do the job and do it well. Let me caution all of us that summer will pass quickly. We should not put off our responsibilities. We are sent here by our constituents to do our jobs for them, not to sit in endless quorum calls and have days of morning business because some group wants a special interest measure to be addressed and demands unlimited debate without any end in sight. In addition, I am concerned that certain Senators are holding this agriculture appropriations bill hostage at a time when many in our farm communities are undergoing great hardship. America may be in the midst of great prosperity, but it is not a prosperity that has reached the farms. Many of our farmers are working harder and harder, and times are tougher and tougher, not better and better. Just a few months ago, we passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that dealt, in part, with the crisis in the agriculture sector. Members on both sides of the aisle agree that farm families are not enjoying the prosperity that other Americans have recently been enjoying. So this is not the time for the Senate to deal another blow to those who are already hurting. It is not the time for the Senate to kick agriculture while it is down. We need to stand up for our farmers, and we need to stand up for our ranchers, not to try to make political hay out of an issue unrelated to agriculture on the agriculture appropriations bill. Since we are not on the agriculture appropriations bill, and I am not sure when we will return to it, I want to spend a few minutes talking about an amendment I plan to offer to the agriculture appropriations bill. It is an amendment that will help farmers by opening, and keeping open, foreign markets to their goods. I want to discuss a commitment the Congress made to America's farmers and ranchers when we passed the Freedom to Farm bill 3 years ago. Then, we promised that as the Government reduced farmer price support programs, we would ensure that farmers had ascending opportunities to be competitive in international markets. As we withdrew the Government involvement in farming, we would expand the opportunities for farmers in markets overseas. This was a promise to open new markets. However, in order to do so, we had to not only remove foreign barriers to U.S. farmers and ranchers, we needed to remove our own barriers to U.S. exports of farm goods. Removing U.S. barriers means agricultural sanctions reform, which is important to America's farmers and ranchers, and especially important to me as a Member who represents a farm State. For more than 200 years, farmers and ranchers have been vital to the growth and the economic prosperity of the United States. We were an export country, agriculturally, from the beginning. We always responded to challenges in our competitive free market system. I believe the United States has the best farmers in the world--first class in production, processing, marketing, both abroad and at home. However, we are now seeing the effects of depressed farm prices across the Nation. No doubt, we need to face the crisis head on, but while we are passing multiple spending bills this year, there are some basic questions we should answer: Have we done everything we can to allow farmers to be independent, to allow farmers to have the freedom to compete, to give them opportunities and not just send them money, to consider the long-term well-being of family farms? In the absence of us fulfilling our promise to open markets, is our spending merely keeping farms solvent this year only to be lost in the future? We have had 3 years to answer these questions, and the answer to all of them is still a resounding no. The administration and the Congress have many words about open markets and more export opportunities, but our actions have been to bog ourselves down with turf battles and procedural maneuvering. How can we explain this to the agricultural community across America? How can we tell our family farmers in the Midwest, in Missouri, in the Far West, or in the East and the South, that we really want to give them increasing opportunity in world markets, and then thwart our own goal with institutional barricades, and tell them we want to sell abroad but forbid them to sell abroad by having embargoes of our own products, sanctions against countries that are unnecessary and counterproductive, so it makes it impossible for them to have the same markets they would otherwise enjoy? I believe we must enact reforms that give farmers and ranchers the opportunity both to be productive and to be competitive. Such reforms will strengthen farm families. I believe these policies are ones rooted in the American tradition of increasing opportunity. One-hundred-plus years ago, my grandfather, John M. ``Cap''--they called him Cap--Larsen left northern Norway as a 13-year-old to sail the high seas. He changed his name and, with all his earthly endowment contained in a duffel bag, he switched ships and boarded one destined for the United States as a crew member. He could not speak the language, but he knew that America was a place of ascending opportunity, and he came here. We have a responsibility to America to keep our opportunity growing. We can't keep our opportunity growing if we are closing the markets in which American farmers can sell their produce. So, clearly, our opportunity is to say to American farmers--and I would like to say to Missouri farmers--we want you to have an opportunity to sell your goods in as many places as is possible. The agricultural industry is the backbone of my State's economy, accounting for more than $4 billion annually. While the United States can produce more food than any other country, we account for only 5 percent of the world's consuming population. That leaves 95 percent of the world's consumers outside of our borders. This is an astounding statistic when we put it in terms of creating opportunities. Exports account for 30 percent of the gross cash receipts for America's farmers, and nearly 40 percent of all U.S. agricultural production is exported. However, with the consuming capacity of the world largely outside our borders, our farmers and ranchers need increasing access to foreign demand. Farmers and ranchers tell me repeatedly that they want more of our help abroad and less of our interference on their farms. They need us to open foreign markets, and they need us to keep those markets open. Our first task--opening foreign markets--looms before us like a brick barricade. With the same will and authority of President Reagan before the Berlin Wall--when he said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall''-- we must face head-on the barricades before our farmers and ranchers. It is not an easy task, but then again neither was dismantling the Evil Empire. The Europeans are standing on their massive wall of protectionism built across the trail of free trade and simply rejecting U.S. beef. For example, May 13 was the last date for them, according to the orders from the World Trade Organization, in which they had exhausted every appeal. That was the last day for them to finally say they will accept U.S. beef. They refused to do so. We have to blaze a trail. The Europeans cannot be allowed to make a mockery of our competitive spirit, especially that of our cattle ranchers. Our second task--keeping markets open--is why my colleagues and I are here on the floor today. The picture of ascending opportunity for farmers is incomplete without a view of foreign markets unimpaired by U.S. embargoes. We have gone from the idea of trade barriers on the part of the Europeans to embargoes on the part of the United States. We keep a number of our farm products from being sold around the world, and unnecessarily. I might add that using food and medicine as weapons creates a cumbersome trail, an environment of descending opportunities. Agricultural embargoes amount to a denial of much-needed food and medicine for the innocent people of foreign lands with whom we have no quarrel and to a unilateral disarmament of the farmers in a competitive world market. We have simply pulled our farmers out of competition in a number of areas where we need not. We must not use our farmers or innocent people as pawns of diplomacy or allow our embargoes merely to add bricks to the walls of protectionism that other countries have erected. Our farmers have jumped through all the hoops of foreign trade barriers and redtape to establish trusted relationships with foreign buyers. That has happened. And the U.S. Government should be extremely cautious about interrupting their sales by imposing trade sanctions. Many farmers' livelihoods depend on sales overseas. For instance, in the mid-1990s, more than one-fourth of Missouri's farm sales were made to overseas consumers. But because the U.S. Government has sanctioned agricultural trade, there has been an estimated $1.2 billion annual decline in the U.S. economy during these years. In other words, our whole country suffered to the tune of an annual decline of $1.2 billion as a result of agricultural embargoes. This translates into 7,600 fewer U.S. jobs. Even one-third of those 7,600 jobs lost translates into the loss of a family farm. So we have lost about 2,500 family farmers in each of the last several years because of agricultural embargoes. Sometimes I think we need to ask ourselves: Who are we hurting? We think we are hurting other countries that go into the world market and buy from other suppliers. I don't think we are hurting them badly-- perhaps not nearly as badly as we hurt America when we lose 2,500 family farms a year. That is 50 family farms a week. That is a tradition that they no longer pass on--a tradition of resourcefulness, a tradition of independence, a tradition of providing food and fiber to a hungry world. Additionally, this debate on agricultural sanctions reform is broader than the effect sanctions have on America's farmers. In addition to hurting our sales and damaging our farmers' credibility as suppliers, embargoes deny food and medicine to those who need it most--citizens who have to live under the rule of some of those who are most oppressed. Also, the United States, by imposing unilateral agricultural embargoes, can actually end up benefiting instead of punishing foreign tyrants. For instance, one of the little-known aspects of the Soviet grain embargo concerns how much money the Soviets saved as a direct result of the United States ``punishing'' them with an embargo. There may be a number of people who do not remember the U.S. grain embargo with the Soviet Union in the late 1970s, I believe it was. We thought, well, they are not doing things the way we want them to, so we will make it tough on the Soviets. We will embargo exports from the United States to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, when we said we would no longer trade with them, was able to cancel 17 million tons of relatively high-priced purchases from the United States. So they wouldn't buy these quality well-produced items from American agriculture. They replaced those purchases they were going to get from American agriculture with purchases from other countries. What do you know? They even bought from other countries at lower prices. The U.S. embargo unilaterally canceled private contracts and drove the world market prices down by sending our grain into the world market, and at the same time it was estimated that the embargo saved the Soviets about $250 million. In an effort to hurt the Soviets, we saved them $250 million, and we cost the American agricultural community 17 million tons of agricultural sales to a market for which the contracts had already been signed. That is not exactly the intended result. But all too frequently when we keep our farmers from selling to countries overseas as a result of these sanctions and embargoes, we end up hurting ourselves, and not the other country. We end up destroying family farms in America--not something in the other jurisdiction. We end up making it tough on American farmers. I agree that in some instances the United States needs to use trade sanctions. They can be a foundation for the protection of our national security interests and to the promotion of our foreign policy goals. However, because I believe agriculture and medicine should rarely be used as a unilateral weapon--they aren't things that really are going to win wars for us generally, especially if the agriculture production that we cut off is really replaced just by production brought on line in other cultures--I think we should be very serious about any effort to use agriculture or medicine as a weapon. I think both the Congress and the administration need to consider it very carefully, and that they ought to combine their authority to lift most of the remaining restrictions on American farmers and ranchers. We ought to give them a chance to sell to a hungry world. That is why a number of Senators and I--Senator Hagel, Senator Boxer, Senator Kerrey, Senator Roberts, and Senator Dodd--are working on this amendment which I would otherwise be offering if we weren't in morning business. I hope many other Senators will join. We want to be involved in discussing what is good for America--yes-- what is good for our farm communities, and our home States, and discuss why sanctions, which really hurt us more than they hurt the other fellow, are really counterproductive to American farmers. If there are costs to be borne in our culture as a result of our antagonism with others, those costs should not be focused solely on the agricultural communities in a way that makes our farmers less competitive, because we narrow in a significant way the markets that they would otherwise have in the world marketplace. The theme of the amendment I would have proposed is that sanctions should rarely, if ever, be imposed against food or medicine, and, if they need to be imposed, both Congress and the President should be involved. Our farms should not be sanctioned without serious deliberation about the effects. If food and medicine for the world is important--and the Food and Medicine for the World Act should be passed--it is this: That in order to use agriculture or medicine as a part of a sanctions regime, there would have to be an agreement between the administration and Congress. Let me make this clear. We don't want to tie the hands of the President. We merely want to require the President and Congress to shake hands in agreement, if we are going to ever use food and medicine as a part of a sanctions or an embargo regime. That is the thrust of the amendment, which I am proposing; and here is how it would happen. Under the amendment, agriculture is carved out of a sanctions package when any new sanctions are imposed. The President would still be able to use his broad sanctions authority, but agriculture and medicine would be treated a little differently. When any new unilateral sanction is announced by the President, the sanctions he imposes may go into effect, except they would not affect agriculture or medicine unless the President submits a report to the Congress asking the sanctions include agriculture, and Congress approves, by joint resolution on expedited review, his request to sanction agriculture and/or medicine. Additionally, sanctions on agriculture and medicine that are put in place by the new procedure would sunset after 2 years unless the President made a new request for sanctions and the Congress extended that particular item. There are certain instances in which the President would not have to get approval from Congress to include agriculture and medicine in a sanctions regime. First of all, we want to make sure we are not aiding terrorists in any way. It is one thing for terrorists to use their money to buy our food. At least they aren't using their money to buy bombs and weapons. However, we need to make sure we don't somehow subsidize our sales to terrorists. That is why we have included an exception in the bill for terrorist governments. In no instance would we extend credit or credit guarantees to governments of state-sponsored terrorism. This is an important point to me: We are not going to be giving tax dollars of the American people to terrorist governments so they can buy our food and, having gotten credit from us, then buy munitions to carry out their terrorism. That is not possible under this act. Second, we will not give terrorists any dual-use items. This sanctions amendment specifically carves out items on the commerce control list, items on the munitions list, and any item that would be used to manufacture chemical or biological weapons. This is the strongest belt-and-suspenders approach possible. We honor the commerce control list, the munitions list, and we would make sure there were no credit extensions to terrorist regimes. Finally, if Congress has declared war, the President would be able to include agriculture and medicine in a sanctions regime against the country of which we are at war. If we have declared war, obviously we are not going to be aiding or trading with the enemy in any way. Congress would not have to again provide ratification of the President's sanctions in that setting. My colleagues and I are genuinely of the belief that this bill is in the best interests of American agriculture. It is the best approach to agricultural sanctions reform. We do not have to balance national security interests versus farm exports because we do not limit the ability of the United States to protect its national security interests. When the national interests are clearly at stake, the Congress and the President should be able to agree. For the most part, I do not think we should use items such as wheat and soybeans as weapons for foreign policy. However, if the need ever arises to embargo agriculture, Congress and the administration can impose sanctions that would affect the flow of our agricultural goods to nations abroad; we just need to have a deliberative process set in place, and we need to ensure that both the President and the Congress are in agreement. The food and medicine for the world amendment is fair and it is constitutional. The food and medicine for the world amendment, which is the amendment I would propose today if we were actually on the bill, sends a message to overseas customers that U.S. farmers and ranchers will be reliable, that people can depend on our produce and our production, and we will honor our contracts. The food and medicine for the world amendment also sends a message to U.S. farmers and ranchers. It says we will not tamper with their capacity to have good, open markets around the world without due deliberation. Also, it begins to fulfill a definite promise made to our farmers and ranchers a little over 3 years ago. Not only would we be assuring U.S. farmers and ranchers, I think we would be sending a signal to poor citizens around the world who need the food, the produce, the fiber that we produce, the medicines that we have, that we have a heart in America that respects their heart, that they are not subscribing to tyranny because they have to live under it, and that we are not unwilling to provide needs to individuals as long as our provision of needs doesn't sustain the oppression of individuals. It is time to enact a policy that supports our farmers' efforts to reach their competitive potential internationally, a policy that makes food and medicine available around the world. We must create ``ascending'' opportunity for our farm families. This measure would provide for that. It also understands that there are times when we need to curtail the flow of our goods overseas, but it requires both the administration and the Congress to come to an agreement in order for that to happen. I believe the food and medicine amendment which I would be proposing, were those on the other side of the aisle not thwarting our capacity to move forward in addressing the pressing needs of agriculture today, is essential to the well-being of the farmers and ranchers in America, also essential to our well-being and our reputation as a reliable producer and provider of food, fiber, and medicine around the world. I ask unanimous consent two pertinent letters be printed in the Record.