John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. For the information of all Senators, a vote will occur within the next 10 minutes on passage of the assisted suicide bill. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Additionally, groups such as the National Right to Life, the American Geriatrics Society, Family Research Council and Physicians for Compassionate Care have endorsed this legislation, and nearly one-third of the Senate has signed on as cosponsoring the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act, 33 Senators from both sides of the aisle. I am confident that our vote later today will prove that an even greater number of Senators will support and do support this measure. This is not just something which I feel should be prohibited because most Americans are against it. I feel it is wrong for Kevorkian's house calls to be paid for by Federal tax dollars. The next time Kevorkian decides to end a life, we should not foot the bill. And unless we take action, that can happen. I feel it is wrong and would argue against allowing for assisted suicide altogether. In cultures where the focus is on assisted suicide, there is not much emphasis on how to ease pain or how to help people confront those life-ending illnesses through hospice programs. There are some dramatic differences among European countries that have differing policies on assisted suicide. England, which prohibits assisted suicide, has a substantial effort directed at helping people in the terminal stages of disease, while the Netherlands, which allows assisted suicide, has not made such efforts. So public policy in this arena does make a difference, and it makes a difference on moral grounds. Really, we are focused on very narrow grounds in this particular instance. We are focused on the idea of whether or not tax resources of the Federal Government should be used to assist in suicide. Obviously, there are practical reasons not to allow Federal funding for assisted suicide. There are cases, many of them in the literature, where there was an improper diagnosis, so that it appeared there was a terminal disease but when someone's autopsy was conducted after an assisted suicide, it was found it was not a terminal disease. That is a mistake which is irreversible. I believe that for us to fund assisted suicides is to be involved in an extremely risky business; it is to deny the will of the people of the United States; it is to engage in the ending of life rather than the enrichment of life, which is what these medical programs were all about when they were created and funded in the Congress. I believe it is clear we should signal our intention, an intention consistent with the President of the United States, who has basically endorsed this measure after its passage by the House, consistent with the American Medical Association and a wide variety of other groups that indicate that Federal funding of assisted suicide would be inappropriate. Our Government's role should be to protect and preserve human life. Federal health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid should provide a means to care for and protect our citizens, not become vehicles for their destruction. The Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act will ensure that our policy in this area will continue. Today, the Senate has an opportunity to act proactively, to take the right steps in advance of these threats which are imminent but are not quite upon us, the threat that these legal obstacles might be cleared away and we would be called upon to participate in the funding of assisted suicide under something as misleading and grotesque as the concept of ``comfort care'' in the State of Oregon. Today, the Senate has an opportunity to act responsibly before the situation arises in which Federal health care dollars would be used to end the lives of citizens of this country. I urge my colleagues to join together to pass the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. We should not hook up Dr. Kevorkian to the U.S. Treasury, especially when he tries to sever the lifeline to individuals who are in distress. The next time Dr. Kevorkian makes a house call, taxpayers should not foot the bill. It is time for us to respond to what we know the American people's desire to be. It is time for us to say we will not allow the use of Federal funds to assist in suicide.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Likewise, I would like to extend my thanks and the thanks, I believe, of the American people, to Senator Dorgan for taking this important step and for having the foresight to do it in advance of some commitment of the Treasury. We are perilously close to having Federal funds used in this respect. A court decision stands between us and that potential. But having the foresight to prepare in advance is appropriate, and I thank him for his excellent work. I am pleased to note that there are others who want to speak on this issue. I look forward to hearing Senator Hutchinson's remarks. I would just say that one of the reasons I am not eager to see Federal funding provide the resource for assisted suicide is that in so many cases that I have known, the diagnosis was missed. It seems to me particularly tragic to think you would seek to fund a suicide on one set of facts and to find out that it was not the case. I am reminded of a case reported in the Washington Post--and I make reference to it and will submit it for inclusion in the Record--from July 29, 1996. A twice-divorced, 39 year-old mother of two from California, allegedly suffering from multiple sclerosis, checked into a Quality Inn and received a lethal injection--becoming the most recent person to die with Dr. Kevorkian's help. Though her death warranted little notice nationwide, authorities at least had one major question. According to the doctor who autopsied her body--``She doesn't have any evidence of medical disease.'' The county medical examiner said in an interview, ``I can show you every slice from her brain and spinal cord,'' obviously, from the pathology reports, ``and she doesn't have a bit of MS. She looked robust, fairly healthy. Everything else is in order. Except she's dead.'' From the Washington Times, Tuesday, October 1, 1996, another individual, Richard Faw, who reportedly suffered from terminal colon cancer. The medical examiner wrote: ``There was some residual cancer in the colon but none present in the kidney, lungs or liver. . .'' He went on to say, ``He could have lived another 10 years, at least.'' It seems to me it would be particularly ironic to be forced to spend resources that we have committed to protecting and preserving health if we were to be committing those resources unduly and inappropriately based on mistaken diagnoses to destroy individuals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am pleased to note the presence of Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas. I look forward to his remarks. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, some people have asked me whether this bill would create any new restrictions or limitations on such practices as the withholding or withdrawing of medical care; the withholding or withdrawing of nutrition or hydration, abortion, or the administration of drugs or other services furnished to alleviate pain or discomfort, even if the drugs or services increase the risk of death.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I have also been asked about whether the bill would prohibit legal services lawyers or other legal advocates receiving Federal funds from talking to their clients about assisted suicide.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1003 relating to assisted suicide.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, rarely do we see a showing of bipartisan agreement similar to the one we witnessed last Thursday when the House of Representatives voted 398 to 16 to pass H.R. 1003, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. I look forward to the same showing of bipartisanship today as the Senate considers identical legislation. Except for a minimum of differences, H.R. 1003 is substantively the same as S. 304, which Senators Dorgan, Nickles, and I introduced in February; 33 Senators are now cosponsors of this bill, which simply says and directs that Federal tax dollars shall not be used to pay for or to promote assisted suicide. This bill is urgently needed to preserve the intent of our Founding Fathers. The integrity of our Federal programs serving the elderly and seriously ill are at stake without this measure. These are programs which were intended to support and enhance health and human life, not to promote their destruction. Government's role in our culture should be to call us to our highest and our best. Government has no place in hastening Americans to their graves. However, our court system is on the brink of allowing Federal taxpayer funding for assisted suicide. On February 27, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated Oregon's law known as Measure 16. It was the first law in America to authorize the dispensation or the giving of lethal drugs to terminally ill patients to assist in their suicide. Oregon's previous Medicaid director and its Health Services Commission chair have both said independently that once assisted suicide is legal--in other words, when the legal obstacles have been cleared away--assisted suicide would be covered by the State's Medicaid plan, which is paid for in part by Federal taxpayers, individuals from all across America. According to the Oregon authorities, the procedure will be listed on Medicaid reimbursement forms under what I consider to be a misleading but grotesque euphemism. The administration of lethal chemicals to end the lives of individuals will be listed as comfort care. Although the ninth circuit ruling is subject to further appeals, Oregon may soon begin drawing down Federal taxpayer funds to pay for assisted suicide unless we, the representatives of the people, take action to pass the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. Additionally, a Florida court recently found a right to assisted suicide in the State's constitution on the right to privacy. If upheld by the Florida State Supreme Court, this decision would raise the question of State funding for assisted suicide. Such actions would implicate Federal funding in matching programs, just as would the situation in Oregon, programs such as Medicaid. And they would raise questions about the permissibility of assisted suicide in federally owned health care institutions in that State. So action in Congress is needed at this time to preempt and proactively prevent this imminent Federal funding of assisted suicide which effectively may take place at any moment in the event that the courts clear the way in regard to the situation in Oregon and in Florida. It is important to note that there was overwhelming approval for this measure in the House of Representatives. As I stated earlier, the House passed this measure by a resounding vote of 398 to 16. Shortly after that vote, the White House issued a policy statement saying, ``The President has made it clear that he does not support assisted suicides. The Administration, therefore, does not oppose enactment of H.R. 1003, which would reaffirm current Federal policy prohibiting the use of Federal funds to pay for assisted suicides and euthanasia.'' In light of these events, the Senate should act swiftly to pass this legislation so that it will become the law of the land. I would like to give the legislative history for the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act in order to respond to some people who might say that the Senate is taking up this legislation too quickly. The Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act is not new. It has received more than adequate consideration. It was introduced in both Houses in the last session of Congress. On April 29 of last year the House held hearings. On February 12, 1997, the Senate introduced its bill. On March 6, the House held hearings on the topic of ``Assisted Suicide: Legal, Medical, Ethical and Social Issues.'' On March 11, 1997, the House introduced legislation. On March 13, the House Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Health and Environment met in open markup session and approved H.R. 1003 for full committee consideration. On March 18 the bill was ordered favorably reported by the Ways and Means Subcommittee to the full committee by a voice vote. Because he found the legislation to be noncontroversial, Chairman Archer decided that a markup in the full Ways and Means Committee was unnecessary, and he turned out to be a prophet in suggesting its lack of controversy when in fact on April 10 the House of Representatives passed the measure by a vote of 398 to 16. Of course, the House legislation is virtually identical to S. 304, and the intention of the bill simply is to say that we do not think it appropriate that funds which were gathered and taxed in order to provide medical assistance to individuals to enhance their lives should be used to end their lives. It is important also, though, to take a look and clearly develop an understanding of what this bill does not do. While it is clear that the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act prevents Federal funding and Federal payment for or promotion of assisted suicide, it is also just as important to understand there are things this bill is not designed to do. This is a proposal that is very limited and very modest. No. 1, it does not in any way forbid a State to legalize assisted suicide or even to provide its own funds for assisted suicide. It simply says Federal resources are not to be used to promote or conduct assisted suicides. After passage of this bill, States might choose to legalize or fund assisted suicide, but they would not be able to draw on Federal resources normally drawn upon in joint efforts between the State and the Federal Government for the provision of health services. No. 2, this bill also does not attempt to resolve the constitutional issue that the Supreme Court considered in January when it heard the cases of Washington versus Glucksberg and Vacco versus Quill. Those cases involved the question of whether there is a right to assisted suicide or whether there is a right to euthanasia. This bill does not try to answer that complex question. This bill simply says the Federal Government should not be involved in funding or paying for assisted suicides or paying for the promotion of assisted suicide. As the bill's rule of construction clearly provides as well, it does not affect abortion. It is not designed to deal with the question of abortion. Members of this body have a widely divergent set of views on that important issue, as I do personally, but this bill is not designed to affect that issue. It does not affect complex issues such as the withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, even of nutrition and hydration. Those issues are not affected by this measure. Nor does this legislation affect the dispensation of large doses of drugs that are designed to ease the pain of terminal illness. We know that virtually all medical procedures have some risk of not achieving the therapeutic impact desired but as a matter of fact may impair the health of an individual. This bill is not designed for those situations and instances. This bill is designed to prohibit Federal funding of the administration of lethal doses of drugs and other methods used for the purposes of assisting in suicide or for using Federal funding to promote such assisted suicide. It is with that in mind that we believe there should be a broad bipartisan consensus which will support this bill and we hope will carry it forward in a way similar to the way in which the House of Representatives has so done. This legislation has wide support from the public and important organizations as well and has wide support in the Senate. It is crystal clear to me and I think to most around us that the American people do not want their tax dollars spent on dispensing toxic drugs with the sole intent of assisting suicide. Recently, a national Wirthlin poll showed that 87 percent of the public opposed such a use of public funds. We would be derelict in our duty were we to allow a few officials in one or two States to command the taxpayers of all the other jurisdictions in America to subsidize the practice of assisted suicide, especially when that practice is against the intention of the individuals in those other States. The Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act has been endorsed by such groups as the American Medical Association and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, both of which have submitted letters of support to the Congress. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it has been said that America is a city on a hill, a special example for the rest of the world to observe--a place of hope, a place of opportunity--what America is and ought to be. But it might be said that if we are a city, we are in need of urban renewal. We need to restart our engine, to regenerate the potential for growth, for the development of opportunity in this culture. Economic growth has been the idea, it has been the mechanism whereby America could find a special place of opportunity, where America could be that particular country that said: Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless tempest tossed, to me. With what the writer of that great poem inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, America could proudly proclaim, ``I lift my lamp beside the golden door.'' America has been a place of opportunity because it has been a place of growth, with an understanding that we could always grow our way through problems. Growth has been that marvelous key toward providing some new hope for individuals. Individuals from anywhere and everywhere at all times in our history have provided a part of the stream of a growing America, a set of opportunities that is the envy of the world. Yet what is happening and has happened to our growth? What has happened to our culture? Working families are being stressed. They get up early. They work hard. They sacrifice time with each other and with their children, and they seem to have less and less to show for it. They are squeezed not just financially but as families. What is the reason? Why is that we as a culture find ourselves laboring under this weight rather than soaring with the opportunity characteristic of our heritage? I think we have a tax load that is weighing down individuals in this culture, and it is a major one. It is simple. It is not hard to understand. The most recent issue of Baron's magazine, which is a magazine that monitors business activity and government and families and opportunity, spells out the tremendous tax load--heavier at this moment in history than at any other time in the history of America. It is interesting to note that we were able to spend our way out of the Great Depression with lower tax rates than we now have. We were able to make the world safe for democracy or to work toward making it in the First World War. We were able to defeat the onerous and terrible power of Nazi Germany in the Second World War with lower tax rates than we have now. Big government is taking so much of the working wages of Americans that Americans no longer have the resources to spend on themselves that they need. The family budget in 1955, for example, was 27.7 percent in total taxes. Now the total taxes of the average American family is well over 38 percent. And you are well aware of the fact that we spend more on taxes than we do on food, clothing, and shelter combined. We need to take a look at what we are spending and how we are deploying it, to see what has happened to what we thought were our wage increases. We have had a lot of wage increases, but we end up with less and less. It turns out that the wage increase for America has been stolen by the Government. If we had the kind of income that we have now and we were paying 27.7 in total taxes like we were in 1955, we would have had real wage increases. Mr. President, today is April 15. It is tax day. Yet most Americans do not realize that we are forced to pay a double tax. We pay income tax on the Social Security taxes that are deducted from our check, on those taxes which are pulled out before we ever see our check. We pay income taxes on that tax. That is particularly unfortunate. We are double taxed. Money that we never see, money that goes to Government, we pay a second tax to Government on that money. It does not make sense. Interestingly enough, this is not a tax that hits American businesses the same way. As you will recall, half of the Social Security tax is paid by citizens; half is paid by corporations or the employers. The citizen who pays the tax pays a double tax--not only pays the Social Security tax but then has an income tax on that same money that is required to be taken out of his remaining funds. The business that pays Social Security taxes gets to deduct from its other taxes what it has paid in Social Security taxes, or gets to deduct from its taxable income what it has paid in Social Security taxes. So the business community gets fair treatment of a single tax while the working individual has a double tax situation there, and it is time to end that kind of arbitrary, unreasonable, unequal, discriminatory approach to the worker and to provide parity with the reasonable expectation that is demanded from the employer and the corporation. If this is deductible to the employers and to corporations and to businesses, the payment of those taxes should also be deductible to individuals in our culture. The ordinary citizen, the worker, cannot though, and it is time that we lift the American worker at least to tax parity and to tax equality, a position that they should share with the corporate community and the business community. For those who are fond of saying that every tax break is a tax break for the rich, it is time to think again. This is not a proposal that is designed to help people who make millions and millions of dollars. Social Security taxes are only levied on the first $65,000 of income. If we provide a deduction for those Social Security taxes which are paid, the person who makes $65,000 in income does not have any smaller deduction or any smaller benefit than the person who makes $650,000 in income or the person who makes $65 million in income. The tax benefit is the same once you reach the $65,000 level. So this is a tax benefit that is not focused on the rich. It is not any more valuable to the very rich than it is to the middle class. The truth is this is the middle-class tax cut that is fair. It provides for people who work, that they will not be double taxed on their work. Social Security taxes are the only tax in America levied on work. Income taxes are levied on earned income or unearned income, but Social Security taxes are levied on work. How ironic that in America we would have a double tax on work. We ought to be standing for a proposition, instead of double taxing work, at least give it equality with other income that would not be double taxed. We would give Americans an opportunity to retain some of that for which they had worked so they could spend it themselves. There would be a significant improvement in the setting for the average two-income family in America. The average two-earner family pays about $1,227 more in income taxes because they cannot deduct from their income tax the taxes they have already paid to Social Security. If we allow them to deduct those, that means that $1,227 that is paid in income taxes would be available for individuals to have to meet their family needs. This is not just a way of saying that people will be able to spend the money. It is saying that people will be able to spend this money on themselves rather than have Government spend this money on more Government programs. I think most Americans understand that they would be better off deciding what they need most and how best to meet those needs than expecting Government to spend the money for them. The thrust of the matter is that this $1,227 per year for the average two-income family would be a welcome relief from a tax load which is higher than it has ever been before in the history of this country. I had the privilege of being Governor in my State for two terms before I came here, and I know what jobs mean and how important jobs are. What is interesting to note is that if we were to implement this tax measure of relief for the American people, the scholars estimate it would mean 900,000 new jobs in this country. Nine hundred thousand new jobs would provide a real spurt of growth for this Nation and would help us reacquire the sense of dynamic that America has had historically and that our heritage contains. Nine hundred thousand new jobs would be an average of about 18,000 jobs per State. I know that 18,000 jobs is equivalent to at least 3 car plants, new car plants, in a State. That would mean growth. That would mean opportunity. It would build for the future of this great country. I think we need to remind ourselves on a consistent basis when we tax people it is not a question of whether or not the money will be spent; it is a question of whether Government will spend the money or people will spend the money. I believe people can decide best. The passage of this act would affect the take-home pay of 77 million Americans who would have more resources to devote to meet the needs of their families, and it would be a measure of providing equity and fairness so that they would not be double taxed and neither would they be taxed unequally and in a discriminatory way as compared to the taxes which are levied on the corporate community. Mr. President, so often we say that bigger Government is required because some think that families will not do what they ought to do. I believe we have come to a juncture where Government has made it impossible for families to do what they need to do. Families want to share. They want to be involved in their communities. They want to be involved in reaching out to other people. When Government takes such a big portion of your income, when you have to work 3 hours every day to pay your taxes and you struggle through the rest of your day to meet your own needs, it does not leave much opportunity for sharing. The purpose of Government is related to growth. It is related to the growth of people, not the growth of Government. If we are to perpetuate a system where the only thing that can grow is Government, we have made a mistake. We would have destroyed the genius of America and repudiated our rich history of being able to grow our way through any challenge. It is time for us, the United States of America, the city on the Hill, again to be a city of hope and opportunity. It is time for us to provide a basis upon which the American worker and the American economy can grow. We can do that by ceasing the practice of double taxing work. We must stop double taxing working Americans. The bill, which I now send to the desk, is cosponsored by Senators Craig, Shelby, Cochran, Hagel, and Hatch. It would end the double taxation that American workers pay on Social Security taxes, because income taxes are levied on those amounts which are deducted as payroll taxes, known as Social Security taxes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair very much for this opportunity to speak in morning business. I commend the Senator from Illinois for her excellent remarks regarding Jackie Robinson, who is an American leader, an inspiration in terms of an individual whose conduct was inspiring not just to people of one race or another but to all America. This is the day upon which we are encouraged to and would appropriately celebrate his vast achievements and his substantial contributions. I thank the Senator from Illinois for her comments in that respect. (The remarks of Mr. Ashcroft pertaining to the introduction of S. 579 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it has been said that America is a city on a hill, a special example for the rest of the world to observe--a place of hope, a place of opportunity--what America is and ought to be. But it might be said that if we are a city, we are in need of urban renewal. We need to restart our engine, to regenerate the potential for growth, for the development of opportunity in this culture. Economic growth has been the idea, it has been the mechanism whereby America could find a special place of opportunity, where America could be that particular country that said: Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless tempest tossed, to me. With what the writer of that great poem inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, America could proudly proclaim, ``I lift my lamp beside the golden door.'' America has been a place of opportunity because it has been a place of growth, with an understanding that we could always grow our way through problems. Growth has been that marvelous key toward providing some new hope for individuals. Individuals from anywhere and everywhere at all times in our history have provided a part of the stream of a growing America, a set of opportunities that is the envy of the world. Yet what is happening and has happened to our growth? What has happened to our culture? Working families are being stressed. They get up early. They work hard. They sacrifice time with each other and with their children, and they seem to have less and less to show for it. They are squeezed not just financially but as families. What is the reason? Why is that we as a culture find ourselves laboring under this weight rather than soaring with the opportunity characteristic of our heritage? I think we have a tax load that is weighing down individuals in this culture, and it is a major one. It is simple. It is not hard to understand. The most recent issue of Baron's magazine, which is a magazine that monitors business activity and government and families and opportunity, spells out the tremendous tax load--heavier at this moment in history than at any other time in the history of America. It is interesting to note that we were able to spend our way out of the Great Depression with lower tax rates than we now have. We were able to make the world safe for democracy or to work toward making it in the First World War. We were able to defeat the onerous and terrible power of Nazi Germany in the Second World War with lower tax rates than we have now. Big government is taking so much of the working wages of Americans that Americans no longer have the resources to spend on themselves that they need. The family budget in 1955, for example, was 27.7 percent in total taxes. Now the total taxes of the average American family is well over 38 percent. And you are well aware of the fact that we spend more on taxes than we do on food, clothing, and shelter combined. We need to take a look at what we are spending and how we are deploying it, to see what has happened to what we thought were our wage increases. We have had a lot of wage increases, but we end up with less and less. It turns out that the wage increase for America has been stolen by the Government. If we had the kind of income that we have now and we were paying 27.7 in total taxes like we were in 1955, we would have had real wage increases. Mr. President, today is April 15. It is tax day. Yet most Americans do not realize that we are forced to pay a double tax. We pay income tax on the Social Security taxes that are deducted from our check, on those taxes which are pulled out before we ever see our check. We pay income taxes on that tax. That is particularly unfortunate. We are double taxed. Money that we never see, money that goes to Government, we pay a second tax to Government on that money. It does not make sense. Interestingly enough, this is not a tax that hits American businesses the same way. As you will recall, half of the Social Security tax is paid by citizens; half is paid by corporations or the employers. The citizen who pays the tax pays a double tax--not only pays the Social Security tax but then has an income tax on that same money that is required to be taken out of his remaining funds. The business that pays Social Security taxes gets to deduct from its other taxes what it has paid in Social Security taxes, or gets to deduct from its taxable income what it has paid in Social Security taxes. So the business community gets fair treatment of a single tax while the working individual has a double tax situation there, and it is time to end that kind of arbitrary, unreasonable, unequal, discriminatory approach to the worker and to provide parity with the reasonable expectation that is demanded from the employer and the corporation. If this is deductible to the employers and to corporations and to businesses, the payment of those taxes should also be deductible to individuals in our culture. The ordinary citizen, the worker, cannot though, and it is time that we lift the American worker at least to tax parity and to tax equality, a position that they should share with the corporate community and the business community. For those who are fond of saying that every tax break is a tax break for the rich, it is time to think again. This is not a proposal that is designed to help people who make millions and millions of dollars. Social Security taxes are only levied on the first $65,000 of income. If we provide a deduction for those Social Security taxes which are paid, the person who makes $65,000 in income does not have any smaller deduction or any smaller benefit than the person who makes $650,000 in income or the person who makes $65 million in income. The tax benefit is the same once you reach the $65,000 level. So this is a tax benefit that is not focused on the rich. It is not any more valuable to the very rich than it is to the middle class. The truth is this is the middle-class tax cut that is fair. It provides for people who work, that they will not be double taxed on their work. Social Security taxes are the only tax in America levied on work. Income taxes are levied on earned income or unearned income, but Social Security taxes are levied on work. How ironic that in America we would have a double tax on work. We ought to be standing for a proposition, instead of double taxing work, at least give it equality with other income that would not be double taxed. We would give Americans an opportunity to retain some of that for which they had worked so they could spend it themselves. There would be a significant improvement in the setting for the average two-income family in America. The average two-earner family pays about $1,227 more in income taxes because they cannot deduct from their income tax the taxes they have already paid to Social Security. If we allow them to deduct those, that means that $1,227 that is paid in income taxes would be available for individuals to have to meet their family needs. This is not just a way of saying that people will be able to spend the money. It is saying that people will be able to spend this money on themselves rather than have Government spend this money on more Government programs. I think most Americans understand that they would be better off deciding what they need most and how best to meet those needs than expecting Government to spend the money for them. The thrust of the matter is that this $1,227 per year for the average two-income family would be a welcome relief from a tax load which is higher than it has ever been before in the history of this country. I had the privilege of being Governor in my State for two terms before I came here, and I know what jobs mean and how important jobs are. What is interesting to note is that if we were to implement this tax measure of relief for the American people, the scholars estimate it would mean 900,000 new jobs in this country. Nine hundred thousand new jobs would provide a real spurt of growth for this Nation and would help us reacquire the sense of dynamic that America has had historically and that our heritage contains. Nine hundred thousand new jobs would be an average of about 18,000 jobs per State. I know that 18,000 jobs is equivalent to at least 3 car plants, new car plants, in a State. That would mean growth. That would mean opportunity. It would build for the future of this great country. I think we need to remind ourselves on a consistent basis when we tax people it is not a question of whether or not the money will be spent; it is a question of whether Government will spend the money or people will spend the money. I believe people can decide best. The passage of this act would affect the take-home pay of 77 million Americans who would have more resources to devote to meet the needs of their families, and it would be a measure of providing equity and fairness so that they would not be double taxed and neither would they be taxed unequally and in a discriminatory way as compared to the taxes which are levied on the corporate community. Mr. President, so often we say that bigger Government is required because some think that families will not do what they ought to do. I believe we have come to a juncture where Government has made it impossible for families to do what they need to do. Families want to share. They want to be involved in their communities. They want to be involved in reaching out to other people. When Government takes such a big portion of your income, when you have to work 3 hours every day to pay your taxes and you struggle through the rest of your day to meet your own needs, it does not leave much opportunity for sharing. The purpose of Government is related to growth. It is related to the growth of people, not the growth of Government. If we are to perpetuate a system where the only thing that can grow is Government, we have made a mistake. We would have destroyed the genius of America and repudiated our rich history of being able to grow our way through any challenge. It is time for us, the United States of America, the city on the Hill, again to be a city of hope and opportunity. It is time for us to provide a basis upon which the American worker and the American economy can grow. We can do that by ceasing the practice of double taxing work. We must stop double taxing working Americans. The bill, which I now send to the desk, is cosponsored by Senators Craig, Shelby, Cochran, Hagel, and Hatch. It would end the double taxation that American workers pay on Social Security taxes, because income taxes are levied on those amounts which are deducted as payroll taxes, known as Social Security taxes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of till death us do part seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Richard and Beatrice Maple of Sedalia, MO, who on April 19 will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Maples' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Ashcroft pertaining to the introduction of S. 514 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, for purposes of introducing a bill and making remarks in relation thereto, that I be granted permission to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in his ``Democracy in America,'' Alexis de Tocqueville observed ``Americans of all ages, all stations in life * * * are forever forming associations.'' Be it to repair a public thoroughfare or to promote temperance, de Tocqueville noted volunteer associations were Americans' best response to community needs and to cultural pathologies. This observation, made over 150 years ago, certainly has been the case until a little over a decade ago. Volunteers have nurtured the elderly, they have coached generations of children, they have cleaned up our communities, they have supported and counseled those in need throughout American history. I look back at my time as Governor of the State of Missouri when we started the Clean the Highways Program using volunteers. We had 5,000 groups of volunteers--5,000 groups, not 5,000 volunteers--who accepted responsibility. It is a sort of fulfillment of de Tocqueville's observation about America, that Americans of all ages, of all stations in life are forming associations to do good things. These groups have been catalysts that interact with all elements of our culture. It is to volunteers that we owe a great deal of gratitude for our social cohesion--our sense of community in America. When things are done from the perspective of government, people view them as entitlements. When things are done by individuals because they volunteer, people know that we love one another. Basically, it is in our care and regard for each other--expressed when we do things on a voluntary basis--that is the real glue that binds us together as communities and holds us together as a culture. It was in 1982 that the first warning signs went out that our intricate system of volunteers fulfilling social work was under attack. In Runnemede, NJ, a Little League coach volunteer was sued because he repositioned his Little League shortstop to the outfield, and in the outfield the Little League shortstop then misjudged a flyball and sustained an eye injury. A suit was filed on the allegation that the 10-year-old youngster was a born shortstop, but not an outfielder, and the courts found the volunteer coach negligent. Over the next 5 years, liability rates for Little League baseball short up from $75 to $795 forcing many leagues to stop playing. In another example, a boy in a Scouting unit with the Boy Scouts of the Cascade Pacific Council suffered a paralyzing injury in a game of touch football. Several adults volunteered to supervise the trip. The youth filed a personal injury suit alleging that the Boy Scouts and the volunteers were negligent for failing to supervise him adequately. I remember playing aggressive games as a Boy Scout. I remember playing a game we called fox over the hill. One group was supposed to run from one line to the other line without getting tackled, pummeled, and roughed up. That is the way boys operate. That is part of boyhood. But the jury found that the volunteers were personally liable for some $7 million. Oregon law caused the judgment to be reduced to around $4 million, but few Boy Scout volunteers can afford that kind of a judgment. The jury held the volunteers to a heightened standard of care, charging them with a meticulous constant supervision level of care in their supervision over activities that routinely have been permitted without oversight. Such a standard is impossible to uphold. Anyone who has been a Boy Scout or certainly tried to supervise Boy Scouts knows that such a standard would be very difficult, and such an impossible standard has basically caused a marked drop off in voluntarism across the country. In fact, the Gallup organization studied voluntarism and, in a study titled the ``Liability Crisis and the Use of Volunteers of Nonprofit Associations,'' the Gallup organization found that approximately 1 in 10 nonprofit organizations has experienced the resignation of a volunteer due to liability concerns and that 1 in 6 volunteers reported withholding services due to a fear of exposure to liability suits. What we have basically done in the last two decades is to send a signal to people: If you volunteer to be helpful, you could jeopardize the well-being of your own family; you could make it very difficult to maintain the home and lifestyle to which you have become accustomed; in trying to help others, you might, as a matter of fact, hurt yourself. I think that is sad because it has reduced this good impulse of Americans. The study also found that 1 of 7 nonprofit agencies had eliminated one or more of their valuable programs because of exposure to lawsuits. So, instead of having more programs to help more people, we have narrowed that because of the threat of lawsuits and the potential of liability. Sixteen percent of volunteer board members surveyed reported withholding their services to an organization out of fear of liability--16 percent. That is almost 1 out of every 6 volunteer board members said, ``No, I'm going to think carefully about whether I'm going to be on the board, because I don't want to get sued, and I don't want to ruin the chances of my family to live properly just because some mistake is made somewhere. The average reported increase for insurance premiums for nonprofits over the previous 3 years, from 1985 to 1988, was 155 percent. That was over the years prior to the study, a 155 percent increase in insurance. And one in eight organizations reported an increase of over 300 percent. So, nonprofits found an increase in their insurance premiums. These numbers demonstrate rather clearly that the cost of lawsuits and the excessive unpredictable and often arbitrary nature of damage awards have a direct and a chilling effect on the spirit of voluntarism and on the nature of our communities. I do not want to wring from the fabric of American society that healthy component that lubricates our social exchanges, the component of caring and loving and dealing with and helping each other, but if our legal system makes it dangerous to help each other and dangerous to care and dangerous to volunteer, we will have done this great country a tremendous disservice. Voluntarism is one of these defining characteristics of American culture. The understanding that people have been historically willing to help one another is a mainstay of who we are as Americans. The hyperlitigious nature of the civil justice system is creating a barrier between the desire of Americans to help others and their ability to do so. So, Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that will offer a new level of protection to volunteers who give selflessly of themselves to help others. The Liability Reform for Volunteer Services Act will reinstate reason, it will reinstate rationality, it will reinstate certainly and fairness to a judicial system with regard to voluntarism. The Liability Reform for Volunteer Services Act covers volunteer services organizations which are defined as nonprofit organizations that are organized for the public benefit and operated primarily for charitable, civic, educational, religious, welfare, or health purposes. Health care providers, however, specifically are excluded from coverage. Many of them fly under the banner or nonprofit, but we all know that they are anything but volunteer organizations, and they are not, in many respects, charitable. Persons volunteering for service organizations or governmental entities are covered by the bill if they are acting in good faith, within the scope of their official duties, and not being compensated for their services. This really is an effort to say to that person that volunteers, ``We are going to give you a fair situation in which to volunteer, and if you are not being compensated, we are still going to hold you to the standard which requires you to have good behavior, but we are not going to expose you to tremendous liability.'' The bill establishes a standard for awarding punitive damages. It is a rather high standard for awarding punitive damages which is designed to punish defendants or defer others from engaging in the same activity against the volunteer services organization or the volunteer. An injured party would be required to establish by ``clear and convincing evidence'' that a volunteer organization or its volunteers acted with a ``conscious and flagrant indifference'' to the rights or safety of others and this conduct caused the harm for which the volunteer is being sued. The clear and convincing standard is greater than the standard for most civil cases, which is merely the preponderance of the evidence, but it is less than the criminal standard which is beyond a reasonable doubt. The clear and convincing standard is a higher standard than the more- likely-than-not or preponderance of the evidence standard, but, obviously, it is less than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Punitive damages would be capped so that punitive damages could not exceed $250,000, or twice the economic and noneconomic losses. So, actual damages would not be affected here. If there were real damages, they would be recoverable, but punitive damages would be capped. In other words, if there were to be punitive damages, not only would they be capped at a maximum of $250,000, or twice the economic damages, you would have to be able to provide that there was clear and convincing evidence that there was a conscious and flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of others. Given either party the right to separate any court's proceeding covered by the act into two parts, the first would determine whether the volunteer or service organization is liable to the injured party, and the second would be to determine whether punitive damages should be awarded. A volunteer services organization or volunteer would only be responsible in proportion to its degree of fault. That would mean that there would not be the kind of joint liability. If the Salvation Army were 10 percent responsible and some other organization 90 percent responsible, and the organization that was 90 percent responsible did not cover all of their 90 percent in the case, the Salvation Army would not be asked to pick up the tab for the other organization. It would only be responsible for that damage that it had been found to have caused. I do not single out one of the most virtuous organizations in America, suggesting that they might ever be liable, but if there were a case against a charitable organization like that, that would be the framework for adjudicating and awarding damages. A volunteer services organization or volunteer only would be responsible for damages in proportion to the degree of fault that was found on their part. The protections provided for in this Bill would not apply if the activity for which damages were awarded constitutes a crime of violence or terrorism. If the volunteer commits a hate crime or is convicted of a civil rights violation these protections would not apply. If a volunteer is convicted of a sexual offense under State law, these protections would not apply. In addition, if a volunteer is found to have been under the influence of alcohol or drugs when the incident giving rise to the litigation occurs and that influence caused the harm, these protections would not apply. This is not a bill designed to authorize people to be high on drugs or alcohol or to commit crimes when they are volunteering. In those instances, the sky would be the limit. We would be under the old system. Let me just say that volunteers do play an integral part in America, in community service. They should not have to fear litigation. They should not have to withdraw from giving themselves to those in need. The Gallup study shows we have had a withdrawal of talent from the volunteer pool. This is the time when we need more Americans being involved in community in a sense of helping each other, not less. In conclusion, let me just make the following observations. The basis for the American community and culture is, in large measure, the result of voluntarism. Alexis de Tocqueville said this is what makes America ``America.'' America is great because America is benevolent--this goodness is the impetus within us to help each other. We have had a development of a legal system which has made that very difficult and costly for volunteers. In a very focused and balanced way, we are trying to say to people that their liability for acts in the volunteer community should be limited only to economic damages unless there is a very flagrant disregard for the rights of others and, in those events, punitive damages should be limited. I believe that this measure will help restore to the American people the capacity to be caring and giving people, to live with each other in a sense of community--bound together by the glue of mutual concern--in service to one another in valuable and selfless ways. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Clarence and Helen Reinsch of Argyle, MO, who on April 9 will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Reinschs' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in his ``Democracy in America,'' Alexis de Tocqueville observed ``Americans of all ages, all stations in life * * * are forever forming associations.'' Be it to repair a public thoroughfare or to promote temperance, de Tocqueville noted volunteer associations were Americans' best response to community needs and to cultural pathologies. This observation, made over 150 years ago, certainly has been the case until a little over a decade ago. Volunteers have nurtured the elderly, they have coached generations of children, they have cleaned up our communities, they have supported and counseled those in need throughout American history. I look back at my time as Governor of the State of Missouri when we started the Clean the Highways Program using volunteers. We had 5,000 groups of volunteers--5,000 groups, not 5,000 volunteers--who accepted responsibility. It is a sort of fulfillment of de Tocqueville's observation about America, that Americans of all ages, of all stations in life are forming associations to do good things. These groups have been catalysts that interact with all elements of our culture. It is to volunteers that we owe a great deal of gratitude for our social cohesion--our sense of community in America. When things are done from the perspective of government, people view them as entitlements. When things are done by individuals because they volunteer, people know that we love one another. Basically, it is in our care and regard for each other--expressed when we do things on a voluntary basis--that is the real glue that binds us together as communities and holds us together as a culture. It was in 1982 that the first warning signs went out that our intricate system of volunteers fulfilling social work was under attack. In Runnemede, NJ, a Little League coach volunteer was sued because he repositioned his Little League shortstop to the outfield, and in the outfield the Little League shortstop then misjudged a flyball and sustained an eye injury. A suit was filed on the allegation that the 10-year-old youngster was a born shortstop, but not an outfielder, and the courts found the volunteer coach negligent. Over the next 5 years, liability rates for Little League baseball short up from $75 to $795 forcing many leagues to stop playing. In another example, a boy in a Scouting unit with the Boy Scouts of the Cascade Pacific Council suffered a paralyzing injury in a game of touch football. Several adults volunteered to supervise the trip. The youth filed a personal injury suit alleging that the Boy Scouts and the volunteers were negligent for failing to supervise him adequately. I remember playing aggressive games as a Boy Scout. I remember playing a game we called fox over the hill. One group was supposed to run from one line to the other line without getting tackled, pummeled, and roughed up. That is the way boys operate. That is part of boyhood. But the jury found that the volunteers were personally liable for some $7 million. Oregon law caused the judgment to be reduced to around $4 million, but few Boy Scout volunteers can afford that kind of a judgment. The jury held the volunteers to a heightened standard of care, charging them with a meticulous constant supervision level of care in their supervision over activities that routinely have been permitted without oversight. Such a standard is impossible to uphold. Anyone who has been a Boy Scout or certainly tried to supervise Boy Scouts knows that such a standard would be very difficult, and such an impossible standard has basically caused a marked drop off in voluntarism across the country. In fact, the Gallup organization studied voluntarism and, in a study titled the ``Liability Crisis and the Use of Volunteers of Nonprofit Associations,'' the Gallup organization found that approximately 1 in 10 nonprofit organizations has experienced the resignation of a volunteer due to liability concerns and that 1 in 6 volunteers reported withholding services due to a fear of exposure to liability suits. What we have basically done in the last two decades is to send a signal to people: If you volunteer to be helpful, you could jeopardize the well-being of your own family; you could make it very difficult to maintain the home and lifestyle to which you have become accustomed; in trying to help others, you might, as a matter of fact, hurt yourself. I think that is sad because it has reduced this good impulse of Americans. The study also found that 1 of 7 nonprofit agencies had eliminated one or more of their valuable programs because of exposure to lawsuits. So, instead of having more programs to help more people, we have narrowed that because of the threat of lawsuits and the potential of liability. Sixteen percent of volunteer board members surveyed reported withholding their services to an organization out of fear of liability--16 percent. That is almost 1 out of every 6 volunteer board members said, ``No, I'm going to think carefully about whether I'm going to be on the board, because I don't want to get sued, and I don't want to ruin the chances of my family to live properly just because some mistake is made somewhere. The average reported increase for insurance premiums for nonprofits over the previous 3 years, from 1985 to 1988, was 155 percent. That was over the years prior to the study, a 155 percent increase in insurance. And one in eight organizations reported an increase of over 300 percent. So, nonprofits found an increase in their insurance premiums. These numbers demonstrate rather clearly that the cost of lawsuits and the excessive unpredictable and often arbitrary nature of damage awards have a direct and a chilling effect on the spirit of voluntarism and on the nature of our communities. I do not want to wring from the fabric of American society that healthy component that lubricates our social exchanges, the component of caring and loving and dealing with and helping each other, but if our legal system makes it dangerous to help each other and dangerous to care and dangerous to volunteer, we will have done this great country a tremendous disservice. Voluntarism is one of these defining characteristics of American culture. The understanding that people have been historically willing to help one another is a mainstay of who we are as Americans. The hyperlitigious nature of the civil justice system is creating a barrier between the desire of Americans to help others and their ability to do so. So, Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that will offer a new level of protection to volunteers who give selflessly of themselves to help others. The Liability Reform for Volunteer Services Act will reinstate reason, it will reinstate rationality, it will reinstate certainly and fairness to a judicial system with regard to voluntarism. The Liability Reform for Volunteer Services Act covers volunteer services organizations which are defined as nonprofit organizations that are organized for the public benefit and operated primarily for charitable, civic, educational, religious, welfare, or health purposes. Health care providers, however, specifically are excluded from coverage. Many of them fly under the banner or nonprofit, but we all know that they are anything but volunteer organizations, and they are not, in many respects, charitable. Persons volunteering for service organizations or governmental entities are covered by the bill if they are acting in good faith, within the scope of their official duties, and not being compensated for their services. This really is an effort to say to that person that volunteers, ``We are going to give you a fair situation in which to volunteer, and if you are not being compensated, we are still going to hold you to the standard which requires you to have good behavior, but we are not going to expose you to tremendous liability.'' The bill establishes a standard for awarding punitive damages. It is a rather high standard for awarding punitive damages which is designed to punish defendants or defer others from engaging in the same activity against the volunteer services organization or the volunteer. An injured party would be required to establish by ``clear and convincing evidence'' that a volunteer organization or its volunteers acted with a ``conscious and flagrant indifference'' to the rights or safety of others and this conduct caused the harm for which the volunteer is being sued. The clear and convincing standard is greater than the standard for most civil cases, which is merely the preponderance of the evidence, but it is less than the criminal standard which is beyond a reasonable doubt. The clear and convincing standard is a higher standard than the more- likely-than-not or preponderance of the evidence standard, but, obviously, it is less than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Punitive damages would be capped so that punitive damages could not exceed $250,000, or twice the economic and noneconomic losses. So, actual damages would not be affected here. If there were real damages, they would be recoverable, but punitive damages would be capped. In other words, if there were to be punitive damages, not only would they be capped at a maximum of $250,000, or twice the economic damages, you would have to be able to provide that there was clear and convincing evidence that there was a conscious and flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of others. Given either party the right to separate any court's proceeding covered by the act into two parts, the first would determine whether the volunteer or service organization is liable to the injured party, and the second would be to determine whether punitive damages should be awarded. A volunteer services organization or volunteer would only be responsible in proportion to its degree of fault. That would mean that there would not be the kind of joint liability. If the Salvation Army were 10 percent responsible and some other organization 90 percent responsible, and the organization that was 90 percent responsible did not cover all of their 90 percent in the case, the Salvation Army would not be asked to pick up the tab for the other organization. It would only be responsible for that damage that it had been found to have caused. I do not single out one of the most virtuous organizations in America, suggesting that they might ever be liable, but if there were a case against a charitable organization like that, that would be the framework for adjudicating and awarding damages. A volunteer services organization or volunteer only would be responsible for damages in proportion to the degree of fault that was found on their part. The protections provided for in this Bill would not apply if the activity for which damages were awarded constitutes a crime of violence or terrorism. If the volunteer commits a hate crime or is convicted of a civil rights violation these protections would not apply. If a volunteer is convicted of a sexual offense under State law, these protections would not apply. In addition, if a volunteer is found to have been under the influence of alcohol or drugs when the incident giving rise to the litigation occurs and that influence caused the harm, these protections would not apply. This is not a bill designed to authorize people to be high on drugs or alcohol or to commit crimes when they are volunteering. In those instances, the sky would be the limit. We would be under the old system. Let me just say that volunteers do play an integral part in America, in community service. They should not have to fear litigation. They should not have to withdraw from giving themselves to those in need. The Gallup study shows we have had a withdrawal of talent from the volunteer pool. This is the time when we need more Americans being involved in community in a sense of helping each other, not less. In conclusion, let me just make the following observations. The basis for the American community and culture is, in large measure, the result of voluntarism. Alexis de Tocqueville said this is what makes America ``America.'' America is great because America is benevolent--this goodness is the impetus within us to help each other. We have had a development of a legal system which has made that very difficult and costly for volunteers. In a very focused and balanced way, we are trying to say to people that their liability for acts in the volunteer community should be limited only to economic damages unless there is a very flagrant disregard for the rights of others and, in those events, punitive damages should be limited. I believe that this measure will help restore to the American people the capacity to be caring and giving people, to live with each other in a sense of community--bound together by the glue of mutual concern--in service to one another in valuable and selfless ways. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield myself such time from the opposition time as is necessary for me to make a statement. Mr. President, I rise today to speak, not in opposition to Merrick Garland for filling the seat on the U.S. court of appeals, but in opposition to filling the seat at all. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a judicial circuit which has the lowest caseload of any of the judicial circuits in the country, and I think this is a time when we ought to ask ourselves some serious questions about whether or not we intend to staff circuits in spite of the fact that there are adequate judges in the circuits to handle the caseload which is currently required of the circuit. First, the amount of judicial work in the circuit raises questions about the necessity of confirming another appellate judge for the D.C. circuit. It appears that filling this vacancy would be an inefficient use of judicial resources. Before filling any vacancy for an appellate judgeship, the U.S. Senate should look at the filings per judgeship compared with other jurisdictions. Of the 12 courts of appeals, the D.C. circuit has the lowest filings per judge of any of the 12 courts of appeals. While the D.C. circuit has had only 123 cases filed per judge, the eighth circuit, the circuit in which I live, handled nearly three times the D.C. circuit's total of appeal filings, with 307 appeals filed per judge. The eleventh circuit court of appeals, in comparison, had 575 appeals filed per judge. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals now has two open seats. But Judge James Buckley, who took senior status last year, which means he is still obligated to handle a caseload equivalent to that of an average judge in active service who would handle a 3-month caseload, is still there. So you have a senior status judge who is handling the equivalent of a quarter of the load that a normal judge in the circuit would handle. So you do not have the loss completely of the second judge in those two vacancies; you have the loss of one judge, and then you have one-quarter judge in the senior status making up for any slack. Still, the D.C. circuit is the least populated with work. And it is the circuit that does not merit additional judges to conduct the work which simply is not there. If we were to use the formula expressed by the Judicial Conference, between 1986 and 1994 the D.C. circuit court would rate just in the order of nine judges to handle its current caseload. So, in terms of the Judicial Conference's own assessment of how many judges would be needed, the caseload of the D.C. circuit would rate nine judges. It has 10 judges now, and if you start to add the additional caseload that can be handled by senior judges, it seems to me that adds an additional capacity of that court to handle work for which it is already overstaffed. While appeals filings for all of the Nation's U.S. courts of appeals increased to an all-time high of 4 percent, the number of filings filed in the D.C. circuit actually dropped last year; it dropped 15 percent. So you have an increase of appeals in the system generally of 4 percent, you have a decline in the D.C. circuit of 15 percent, of the 12 additional circuits, the District of Colombia had the largest decline in appeals last year. Mr. President, ending the era of big Government includes all three branches of government. But if we cannot end big government where we have had declining demand for services, and where we are already overstaffed, where can we end big government? To believe that the judicial branch should be excluded from the exercise of responsibility or should be overstaffed or should ignore the trends in terms of case filings and should be overpopulated with individuals because there are slots available, in spite of the fact that the work or the caseload is not there to justify those slots, would be for us to deny a responsible position in this matter. Let me just indicate that there are two vacancies and virtually everyone will confess that at least one of them should not be filled. This is not a matter of saying some people think all the vacancies ought to be filled; others think that neither of the two should be filled. There is a general consensus that filling the second of the two would certainly be a waste and surplus. I think if you look carefully and you measure the caseload by what the Judicial Conference had previously stated was an appropriate caseload, and you look at the potential for work by the senior active judges who have taken senior status, you can come but to one conclusion, that it is not an appropriate deployment of the tax dollars of the citizens of this great Nation to add a judge to a court where the workload does not justify it. Good government is not to fill a vacancy simply because it exists. To fill this vacancy without taking into account the lack of caseload is fiscally irresponsible. Before I yield the floor, I would like to address the argument that the D.C. court of appeals might be considered to be a different court, unique, one of a kind, because it has a lot of cases that are administrative in nature and they have a certain level of complexity. I think in this regard it is important to cite Judge Silberman, who sits on the D.C. court of appeals. On this point, in 1995, he testified as follows: It is true that the administrative law cases are generally more complicated. But other judges in other circuits, like the second circuit, will tell you that some of their commercial litigation coming out of the Federal District Court is terribly complicated, too. The truth of the matter is, some of the administrative law cases in the D.C. circuit are complicated. But if you look at the second circuit, the caseload of which is more than twice as much as the D.C. circuit, in the second circuit their caseload is complicated as well. The fact of the matter is, it is time for the U.S. Senate, which called the circuit courts into creation, which called district courts into creation, to begin to exercise a responsible approach toward staffing those courts and not to staff them when the workload does not justify it. Even if the nature of the cases coming before the D.C. circuit is unique, those cases are not so difficult, or different from the other cases which have their own uniqueness and have their own difficulty, whether they be commercial instead of administrative, so as to mean that we should populate the court with staffing which is not required by the caseload. Mr. President, I plan to vote against Mr. Garland, not for any reason to impair his standing or his credentials. I do not think this is a question about the qualifications of the judge. But it is a question about the deployment of the public's resource and about the staffing level for courts which do not have caseload to justify it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, Senator Christopher S. ``Kit" Bond and I would like to share with our colleagues in the U.S. Senate the example of a man who has been a model of citizenship, character, and service to humanity throughout his lifetime. The gentleman about whom I speak is Dr. Paul Currie, who will soon retire as pastor of the Presbyterian Church of Caruthersville. On September 22, 1983, Dr. Paul Currie was present in this Chamber serving as Chaplain and offering the opening prayer. While this is historically an honor for any individual, we believe it was more of an honor for the U.S. Senate to have Dr. Currie serving in this chamber. Indeed, we believe the nearly four decades of service rendered to the community of Caruthersville, MO, serves as the real testimony to his compassion for his fellow man. Since arriving in Caruthersville in 1958, Dr. Currie has always sought to reach beyond the lines of faith and unite all denominations in service to those in need. We can take faith that there are others who have been inspired by Dr. Currie and now live outside our great state, serving others. Although Dr. Currie will be retiring, we will never forget his leadership. This veteran of the Korean war, this humble servant of God, community, and family, deserves to be recognized for his decades of service to his fellow man. Senator Bond and I recognize today not only a lifetime of accomplishments by Dr. Currie, but also his inspiration of others. His example will inspire others to seek to enhance freedom, opportunity, and family life for generations to come. In closing, I would like to quote a few words from Matthew 25:21, which I feel summarizes Dr. Paul Currie's many great deeds: ``Well done, my good and faithful servant!" We congratulate Dr. Currie on his retirement and extend him our best wishes for health and happiness for many years to come.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, thank you very much. I want to thank my colleague, the Senator from Utah, for his outstanding leadership on this issue. He has brought to the floor of the U.S. Senate the budgets from 28 years of unbalanced budgets. They represent about, oh, I would say, close to 8 or 9 feet of a stack of papers that has really impaired the capacity of this Nation to move forward. But I would like to mention another problem with that barricade of paper. Whenever you can just displace the cost of doing government to the next generation, you are not forced to make the innovations and improvements that you need to make. Most of us have noted that, in the recent years, the most dynamic and workable solutions to our problems have come from the States. It is because they operate with balanced budgets. They cannot just spend money they do not have and pass the bill to the next generation. Necessity being the mother of invention, the discipline of a balanced budget improves the quality of Government we get. It not only makes sure that we have liberties which would otherwise be forfeited if we grow bigger and bigger Government, but it also improves the quality of what Government does by saying we have to constantly look at what we are doing. We have to innovate and create instead of appropriate just to get better service with limited resources. So the quality of our life now, the quality of Government we receive, and the integrity of the next generation is at stake. We must pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to add discipline to our system which would drive creativity and improvement in what we do. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.