John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to make comments about the rescissions bill which has been before us but which has been withdrawn from consideration as a result of the unwillingness on the part of the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Minnesota to allow amendments to be voted on. Just moments ago, the Senator from Illinois said that there were amendments which she had prepared which she hoped she would have the opportunity to submit. I recall this morning having listened to the leader ask specifically that amendments be submitted. He asked not only that the Senator from Illinois submit amendments for consideration but asked that the Senator from Minnesota submit amendments for consideration. Over and over again, they would deny that they wanted to submit amendments; they would refuse to submit amendments. Then I saw the leader, the majority leader, come to this podium and say I have heard the debate and I will craft an amendment which will reflect the concerns of the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Minnesota, and I will submit that amendment so that we can have a vote so that the Senate can express itself in regard to the amendment, if I can have unanimous consent to do that. The objections which were heard in this Chamber at that time were the objections from the very Senators who now say they were deprived of an opportunity to forward such concerns and have a vote on their concerns. I find that to be confusing, and it is troublesome because every effort was made and every deference was given to those individuals in this Chamber to submit their own amendments. Then absent their own capacity to submit their amendments, the majority leader generously offered to formulate and submit an amendment in their behalf so that there could be a vote reflecting those concerns, and they simply refused to allow those concerns to be reflected in an amendment. I want the Record to be clear on this. Mr. President, the majority leader made the opportunity clear and made it expansive for amendments to be provided here. No amendments were offered. Second, when the majority leader himself offered in their behalf an amendment and needed unanimous consent in order to so do, they objected to that amendment. It is clear to me that the opportunity for amending the rescissions package was thorough and substantial, and that the majority leader bent over backwards in order to make those concerns not available as opportunities but to put them in a position and posture whereupon they could be voted. But the objection to that procedure was, in fact, made by those individuals who had later protested that they had not had the opportunity. Let me just say that we have worked on this issue since early this morning, and that the rescissions bill is a bill, the content of which is well known. In general, it restores $772 million of proposed rescissions and cuts an additional $794 million in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations, for a total rescissions of $16.4 billion. It passed the House by a vote of 276 to 151. The suggestion by individuals in this Chamber that you could not know what was in this bill, that there had been inadequate information or time for consideration, I do not believe, is an accurate suggestion. The restored funding included $225 million for safe drinking water, $105 million to the so-called AmeriCorps volunteer program. That is what it costs us just in this bill in increased funding over our previous effort at rescissions to support the President's so-called volunteer program in which he pays each volunteer $15,000 a year. Of course, then it requires a $15,000 commitment to the bureaucracy to support that volunteer program. There was $220 million in safe/drug free schools restored funding in this rescissions package; $120 million in education and job training that was restored in this rescissions package over the previous rescissions package. It was interesting to hear objection raised that we are somehow depriving opportunities for job training, and the Senator from Minnesota said this was an unconscionable bill. I wonder if that is the way he views his President's recommendation that this bill be passed and assurance that he would sign the bill if the bill were to be presented to him. When the Senator from Illinois talked about job training, I wonder if she was referring to the fact that $120 million was restored in this bill in the area of job training and that there was $102 million in community development block grants, and that this measure as a matter of fact had $39 million as an increase in the 1995 appropriations in miscellaneous housing, community and education programs. Well, I could go on and on. Much was said this morning about a general who had spent $100,000 moving an airplane and asking that he be transported, and I do not think we ought to have generals abusing air travel privileges. That is why I think we ought to support this rescissions bill. This rescissions bill cuts $375 million in Government administration travel. We need to cut that. We need to delete that. And yet under the guise of complaining about travel abuses we have stopped the consideration of a bill which would cut $375 million in Government administrative travel. I believe that the efforts have been counterproductive in this Chamber today. I believe that they have failed to achieve the purposes which they have stated--as a matter of fact, they have turned in on themselves. And the very things they said they sought to assist--job training, cutting abuses, travel abuses in the administration--as a matter of fact, would have been addressed in this rescissions bill, but we were simply denied the opportunity to consider them today. They talked about LIHEAP, the energy program. What we really need to talk about today is the fact that we must make progress toward bringing Government spending into balance with Government resources, and in order to do that we are going to have to make some cuts. We are going to have to make some adjustments. We are looking at the Fourth of July. That is Independence Day. We should be thinking about legislation in the context of independence. We should be thinking about legislation in the context of freeing ourselves from debt. This was an opportunity to free ourselves from expenditures totaling $9.3 billion, with a consensus reached by House leaders, by Senate leaders, by the White House, some way that we could begin to get a handle on the deficit, and we were refused. One of the reasons is there is no willingness to cut the so-called LIHEAP program. Let us look at what LIHEAP represents. Back in the 1970's, when energy prices more than doubled, there was a special program to take the sting out of the massive increase in energy costs. This was a special program to help people buy fuel oil for their homes. The price for energy now has gone below where it was before the crisis. And yet while the energy price has gone down, the LIHEAP program has gone up and up and up. Eventually, if we are going to do what the people of this great Nation sent us here to do--and that is to get Government under control--we are at least going to have to look carefully at programs, the need for which is no longer existent but which grow as a result of the fact that bureaucrats who want to buy the favor of citizens continue to build and build and build the programs. Mr. President, we have had today an opportunity which is sorely missed--missed because there are those who would have, they said, improved the future for our children. I do not think maintaining debt improves the future for America. Virtually every child born today faces interest payments on the Federal debt of nearly $200,000 over their lifetime. We must not saddle the yet unborn children whose wages are yet unearned with the burden, the incredible burden of that kind of weight, a weight in interest costs on the Federal debt. We must get it under control. It is time for us to curtail the $4.9 trillion debt of this country, and the first step, the step agreed to by the House in an overwhelming vote, agreed to by the President of the United States, agreed to by the leadership of the Senate, was to make the $9.3 billion downpayment of rescissions. It has been said loudly and sometimes very sincerely that we maybe did not need a balanced budget amendment. We simply needed to have the capacity to balance the budget. I wonder about our capacity. If we do not have the ability and discipline when we come to a negotiated conclusion about what can be done, what ought to be done to restrict spending, even by a small amount like $9.3 billion as it relates to the trillion dollar budget of this country, I wonder if we have much opportunity for success. So I heard the debate this morning, the debate of apologies between individuals about, oh, it was terrible that we had to rescind these funds. I am here to say that I do not apologize for rescinding funds, funds that we can no longer spend at the expense of the next generation. It is time for us to be serious about curtailing the debt of the United States of America to save the next generation and their opportunities. Independence Day is but a few days away. Unfortunately, independence from debt is not that close, but it is time for us to make a beginning. Mr. President, happy Fourth of July.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is an honor and a privilege to serve the people of Missouri and of this great country. Those of us who were elected in 1994 came here with a mandate from the people to change the way Washington does business. We were asked to reopen the door of self- government and to respect the liberties which have made our democracy a model for the world. With this mandate before us, I want to share with my fellow Senators the pledge that every Member of my office has taken. It is a pledge of service, of commitment, and of dedication. It is a pledge we want to share with the American people. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much. Today we face a set of questions. They are serious questions. They are questions of procedure, of principle, questions of candor and questions of credibility, for today we begin a debate not only about the qualifications of an individual to serve as Surgeon General but about the terms under which that debate will take place. It is a debate neither easily resolved nor easily limited. Neither is it a debate to be taken lightly. There are those who have said that the Surgeon General's office is an office of just a handful of people, that takes up less than $5 million of the taxpayers' money and therefore does not deserve the scrutiny that it has been given. I disagree. The office of Surgeon General speaks with enormous influence and persuasion. Power of the position lies not in its legislative authority but in its ability to influence both the tone and the content of our national conversation concerning some of the most profound challenges that we face. And today the office of Surgeon General is in serious need of repair. It is an office that has been discredited by the reckless agenda and the damaging statements of its last occupant. What we really need now, what we need today, is a Surgeon General of impeccable credentials and unquestionable credibility. We need a national doctor who commands the confidence of the people and who can unite us in tackling our most pressing pathologies. When you need a doctor, you need someone that you can trust; you need someone of reliability; you need someone of consistency. You do not want to go back with the same symptoms and get a different diagnosis in each visit. You do not want to have a different prescription. You need the confidence of knowing that what is said is what is believed and what will be followed. [[Page S 8730]] We have pressing challenges. We have pressing pathologies. They are pressing. Whether it is the continuing scourge of cancer, the crisis of drugs, or the tragedy of illegitimacy, the problems are apparent and yet the solutions are not so apparent. There are those in this administration who look at these problems and say that the only solution is to accommodate people in their problems. To teens in the back seat of a car they would say, ``Better use a condom'' when they should be saying ``Stop. Get out; change your way of living.'' To addicts on the street, they would say, ``Better use a clean needle,'' when they should be saying, ``Stop. Get help; change your way of living.'' We do not need those who would say, ``How can we help you in a lifestyle which is threatening your health and the health of the American people?'' What we do need are people and leaders who will appeal to us at our best, who will appeal to the better angels of our nature, not seek to accommodate the basest of human desires. We need leaders who will agree with the great English writer and thinker G.K. Chesterton who wrote, ``What is wrong is that we do not ask what is right.'' We should be seeking to ask every individual, especially those faced by serious health challenges, how can we avoid these health challenges? How can we provide a healthy Nation by having the kind of consistent approach to behavior that will improve substantially where we are? Frankly, there is not a lot that is right with this nomination. Initial appearances and claims were deceiving. If we were to just take what was originally given us, if we were to truncate or shorten the investigation, if we were to limit the debate, over and over again in this nomination we would find ourselves acting on the basis of inaccurate and false data, acting on the basis of alleged conclusions unsupported by the facts. In a rush to market this nominee, the Clinton administration has displayed a reckless indifference to the evidence and a casual disregard for substantiating documentation. The frequent contradictions and serious misrepresentations about both the background and record of Dr. Henry Foster and about the performance of the I have a future program have in my mind seriously undermined the credibility of this nominee. They have led to confusion and to controversy surrounding the nomination. They have made any notion of a brief debate about this nominee impossible. Let me just recap for a moment. Dr. Foster was introduced to the American people as the architect of a program touted as an abstinence- based program. The fact. It turns out that the program is based on weekly contraceptive distributions. A program which alleges a focus on abstinence has been unable to produce any abstinence brochures developed, produced, or updated under Dr. Foster's leadership. In fact, the only brochures that could be located regarding abstinence were brochures written, published, and printed after Dr. Foster's nomination and after the controversy over Dr. Foster's so-called abstinence program began. Dr. Foster was introduced to the American people as a man behind the program touted as preventing teen pregnancies. President Clinton called it an unqualified success. Well, it turns out, according to its own data, participants were more likely to have had sex than nonparticipants, and that contraceptive use was not increased among those who were participants as compared to those who were nonparticipants. Maybe President Clinton was half right in calling the program an unqualified success. It certainly was not a success, but it was unqualified in terms of helping these young people, for more of the young people had been involved in sexual activity who participated in the program than those who never even participated in the program. And according to the reports promulgated or published by the program itself, the words of the report say that there was no statistically significant difference in pregnancy rates between those participating in the program and those not participating in the program. And as Dr. David Murray of the nonpartisan research group STATS, stated: The program's statistical results do not support the notion that pregnancy prevention or even lowering the risk of pregnancy follows from program participation. Dr. Foster was introduced to the American people as the doctor behind a program extolled as reaching multitudes of children. It turns out that more individuals drop out of the program than persist in the program for complete participation. Just a week after the Labor Committee nomination hearings, I received a letter from Dr. Foster stating that he had inadvertently misrepresented his position to me when I asked about additional statistics or studies on the I Have a Future Program. During the hearing, it became apparent from the studies that were available that the program's marks were not high, that it was not achieving its intended result. So I asked if there were other studies, if there had been other data accumulated, if there were evaluations, and he clearly answered no. But his letter which he sent to me says that what he should have said was, ``Yes, there are other statistics.'' As a matter of fact, there was not only an additional study but an independent analysis of that additional study. And this additional material reinforced the conclusions earlier made about the failure of the program; as a matter of fact, material which suggested a counterproductivity of the effort altogether. But the additional material, that kind of a contradiction, just served to underscore and undermine further the credibility of this nomination, a credibility which was not sustainable and believable as it related to the number of abortions conducted, was not sustainable or believable about the quality and nature of the studies, was not sustainable or believable about the impact on young people. As we consider a vote to decide whether or not we are going to have a complete, open and full debate on this nominee or whether or not we are going to cut off debate rather quickly, these revelations point toward more debate, more scrutiny, more exposure, not less. For it seems the more we probe, the more we discover, and never in this nomination have we found that the initial representations were supported by the evidence or the facts. It is always that the additional revelations somehow contradicted what the marketing by this administration had been. Dr. Foster is a decent man who should be commended for his dedication and service to a desperately needy population. I do not think anyone would contradict that. But his nomination is more than a matter of personality, it is about standards of credibility and integrity, and it is about the belief in what things will remediate the pressing pathologies of our society. It is about an exceptional situation where an office has been discredited by an individual, our last Surgeon General, who discredited not only the office but the administration that she served. It is about this nomination, and this consideration is a debate about substantial and gross inconsistencies and contradictions that will continue to swirl around the nominee. I believe that we need a nominee who inspires unquestioned confidence. We need someone that we have the kind of faith in that we expect in our family doctor. This nominee does not pass that test. The process has not provided a basis for that kind of belief. The questions remaining are serious enough that I voted against this nomination in committee, and I believe that they are serious enough that we should all vote against any measure that would limit the debate over this nomination today. I inquire as to what time remains.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield the junior Senator from Oklahoma 5 minutes.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you. I would be pleased to speak, but I would like to gather my thoughts.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ASHCROFT. In that event, I withdraw my request for unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and ask the Chair to inform me when 5 minutes has expired.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment which would place the Department in the process of authorizing the entry by the Bell operating companies into the long distance markets. Senate bill 652, which was the study result of much activity in committee and a long period of investigation, places the responsibility for making that judgment in the FCC. It is important to understand what the Federal Communication Commission is, how it is composed, why it is the appropriate agency to make those kinds of decisions. The Federal Communications Commission is a quasi-judicial body not affected by politics. Appointees are appointed for an extended period. There are longer periods of appointments than the President's term is. It is designed to be insulated from politics, to make professional judgments that are technical and appropriate to the field that the Federal Communications Commission oversees, and is technically competent and expert in the area of communications. The amendment which we are considering now and upon which the Senate of the United States will act at 12:30 today is an amendment which would have the Department come in and second-guess the judgment of the Federal Communications Commission by adding a Department-consent requirement before these companies could move on to compete and extend and enhance the competition in the long-distance market. I do not believe that kind of layering of the bureaucracies, I do not believe that kind of additional Federal and governmental involvement, would promote competition. As a matter of fact, that kind of bureaucratic involvement very frequently does the opposite of promoting competition. The more bureaucracy that is involved, frequently the more difficult it is for enterprises to have the kind of flexibility that we really want enterprise to have to be competitive in an international marketplace which demands higher and higher levels of productivity. Now, the bill as presented to this body by the committee, S. 652, is very clear about the way it expects the decision to be made regarding the entry of these competitors into the long-distance marketplace. As a matter of fact, it says to the FCC that there is a list, a specific recipe of conditions, that have to be met. In addition to the 14 or so conditions that are listed in the bill, there is another interest that is charged to the FCC that they must consider. It is the public interest. Here what we have in the bill is a governmental body, a quasi- judicial body, the regulatory commission called the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. The Congress in this body is telling them specifically to make the decision based on these criteria and adds to the 14 criteria the public interest. Now, that ought to be enough governmental involvement to assure that we make good decisions and the right decisions. However, the amendment which is now being considered would add the Department in a totally new and different and unprecedented role for the Department, one in which they have not been involved before. The Department would be asked to implement a supervisory authority here and to make a final decision about whether these companies could enter the long-distance competitive marketplace. That final decision is something they have never exercised before. Even under the court orders relating to the divestiture from AT&T of the Bell companies and setting up the Bell operating companies around the country, the regional Bell companies, the Department did not have final authority. The Department went before a judicial decisionmaker and advocated a position. Now, the Department should not be given a decisionmaking authority in this matter because the decisionmaking authority is given to the FCC. The Department should be given an advisory role just like it has an advisory or advocacy role in the current situation. One important thing to remember is that Senate bill 652 does, in fact, provide for an advisory role for the Department. The FCC, in making its final determination about whether or not it will release the regional Bell operating companies to participate in the competition of the long-distance markets, the FCC is directed to consult with and to seek the advice of the Justice Department. But, it would be unprecedented for us to move beyond that traditional role of the Justice Department to ask the Justice Department to be making final decisions. Because, as a matter of fact, that has never been its role in any previous situation and should not be its role now. The FCC is that Commission that is a quasi-judicial body that can make those decisions, is trained to make them, is expert in the communications industry, and ought to be the final authority. So it is pretty clear to me, and I believe it ought to be clear to the U.S. Senate, that the FCC should retain that final authority and that the Department of Justice be maintained in its advisory authority that the bill, S. 652, provides. The amendment which would enhance the advisory authority is unnecessary and would be counterproductive.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, there has been quite a bit of debate on this issue. It has been suggested that those of us who oppose the Department of Justice having a special and unprecedented role of final decisionmaking in this arena do not trust the Department of Justice. We trust the Department of Justice. But we trust it to maintain its traditional role. We trust it to be a law enforcement agency and an advisor as it relates to legality and propriety of measures that relate to the law. But we do not trust it to do something totally new, something different, nor do we trust it to second-guess an administrative agency that has expertise in this area, the Federal Communications Commission. So, this is not a question about whether the Department of Justice will have a role. That question was laid to rest long ago. The FCC is required to consult, according to the language of the bill, with the Attorney General regarding the application during the 90-day period. The Attorney General may analyze a Bell operating company's application under any legal standard, including the Clayton Act, the Sherman Act, and other antitrust laws, and those standards of the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act are the kinds of standards that are suggested by the amendment. The difference between the bill, this bill, and the amendment which is proposed, is whether or not the Justice Department would have final decisionmaking authority. All of its ability to advise and to argue and to participate by virtue of supplying its views are preserved and protected under this bill. But to say the Department of Justice has separate veto authority over the agency of expertise here would be to inject the Department of Justice at a policymaking level never before provided for the Department of Justice, not only in this arena but in other arenas as well. I just suggest that we do not need to change the character of the Justice Department from an enforcement arena and prosecutorial arena to a policy-making arena. The policy should be judged by the Congress of the United States and the policy is set forth clearly here, in the kind of guidelines that we would seek to suggest for the Federal Communications Commission. This amendment will make a mandate of the advisory role of the Department of Justice, a mandated final decisionmaking role, and it will provide for confusion with two Federal agencies seeking to make final decisions instead of one. The Federal Communications Commission is a professional, quasi- judicial organization with 5-year terms. The Department of Justice is an appointed position, appointed by the President of the United States. It has all the benefits of political involvement and has the drawbacks of political involvement. I do not believe we want political decisions to be made, the influence or contamination of politics to find their way into this particular set of decisions. I believe it is important for us to reject this overlapping, doubling up of enforcement at the Federal level, the duplication of decisionmaking. The professional, trained, expert Federal Communications Commission can make this decision with the advice of the Department of Justice. For us to try to have redundant and duplicative Federal control here is for us to reject the promise of the future. Some look into the future and shrink back in fear. I think this is a great opportunity. In closing, I would say I do not think the competitors of the United States, as they are working on a framework for operations for telecommunications, are going to be thinking about how many layers of regulation they can place on top of this industry. I do not think they are going to think about how much duplicative and redundant control, or whether they are going to convert what had otherwise been law enforcement agencies into policymaking agencies and to have a tug of war between two agencies of the Federal Government which would stymie expansion and development and growth in the industry. I think our competitors around the world are going to try to seize and regain the advantage that America currently has in telecommunications. For us to add the Department of Justice, not as an adviser--that is already in the bill--but as a final decisionmaker to compete with another agency trained to get this job done would be unwise. So I urge the rejection of the amendment which would make the Department of Justice a final decisionmaker in this matter.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I recommend that my colleagues in the Senate carefully consider the implications of this effort to grant an unprecedented role to the Department of Justice. I happen to have the privilege of serving in the U.S. Senate now, but I once had the responsibility of being attorney general for the State of Missouri. I hope that my comments as an enforcement officer of an antitrust unit carry extra weight as we examine these very important issues. We have heard the word ``power'' used often in this debate. On Thursday morning in summarizing this bill, S. 652, one Senator said, ``It is about power, Mr. President, power to do what they want to do.'' I see it differently, Mr. President. Let us make no mistake about it, this bill is about change. This is a bill which allows us to look at the future and embrace it. This bill will allow us to look at the technology and opportunity and creativity of the future and take advantage of it. This amendment is about power, and this amendment would layer bureaucracies in the face of change. Those individuals who want to set another layer of bureaucracy on the communications industry and upon the technology, creativity and innovation, those who would sponsor this kind of an amendment that would place lawyer after lawyer of the Justice Department in this mix, are individuals who have gone to the precipice of the future. They have looked into the future, and they are running back in fear, running for the old ways of saying that we need Government to protect us from the system of competition. The truth of the matter is, nothing could be further from the truth. For what we have seen not only in the cellular area, where we have had competition, but in the long distance area, where we have had increasing competition, is that we do not need protection from the competition. Certainly not multiple governmental bureaucracy protection. We need to let competition help us to have the lower rates in local telephones which we have found in the long distance area. We need competition to provide for us the benefits, as in the area of cellular phones, which competition has been very valuable to us in improving our opportunity for service. So competition is what will help us, and competition in the context of regulation under the Federal Communications Commission, but not with the needless layering of bureaucratic regulation by the Justice Department. George Gilder is an individual whose name has already been mentioned in several of the conversations in the debate, particularly by the Senator from Alaska. Before publishing his more recent volumes about computers, microcosms, and telecosms, Mr. Gilder wrote: In every economy, there is one crucial and definitive conflict. This is not the split between capitalists and workers, technocrats and humanists, government and business, liberals and conservatives, or the rich and poor. All of these divisions are partial and distorted reflections of the deeper conflict: The struggle between past and future . . . The truth of the matter is, we are confronted again by a struggle between the past and the future, between the existing configurations of industries and the industries that may someday replace them. Gilder goes on to say: It is a conflict between established factories, technologies, formations of capital, and the ventures that may soon make them worthless--ventures that today may not even exist; that today may flicker only as ideas, or tiny companies, or obscure research projects, or fierce but penniless ambitions; that today are unidentifiable and incalculable from above, but which, in time, in a progressing economy, must rise up if growth is to occur. I believe that is the division we see today. It is the division between those who want to protect us from the future and from those who want to capitalize on the future. It is a division that divides the people who want to embrace the past and those who want to accelerate the future to bring the benefits of the communication age to the American people and to protect the capacity of the American worker to continue to provide the very best, the foremost, the cutting edge of communications technology to the technology industry worldwide. Mr. President, George Gilder wrote in 1981 about the division of the past and the future, but I believe we are unlikely to find any better explanation for the intense activities surrounding this bill. Both in Commerce Committee sessions and on the floor, one Senator after another has testified to the extraordinary attention given this single piece of legislation. Most Senators imply what the Senator from Arizona said in his opening remarks last week that never before has there been such intense and continued and high-priced lobbying. I imagine that the two managers must have felt the urge last Wednesday evening to stand up and say, ``Mr. President, I rise to bring S. 652 kicking and screaming to the floor of the Senate.'' These two Senators, along with other senior Senators on the Commerce Committee, have fought the telecommunications battles longer than I have even been aware of them, and the counsel of experience rings through their testimony. This is no ordinary bill. The stakes are higher than any of us can [[Page S8157]] quantify. This bill is fundamentally about change. As Mr. Gilder told us 15 years ago, change is always the definitive conflict. So, Mr. President, with these thoughts in mind, I want to focus on the amendment we are now considering, the compromise between Senator Dorgan of North Dakota and Senator Thurmond of South Carolina. Unlike the bill in general, this amendment is not about change in our world, but about power in our Government. It is about the power to choose the winners and the losers in our economy, to stand above the marketplace and to play gatekeeper. I think it is important for us to resist that temptation, to resist the idea that Government should somehow choose the winners, choose the losers; that the pollution of politics would possibly infect those who would succeed and those who would fail. Let us have a level playing field, let us have a clear competition, let us let the marketplace make those decisions. The purpose of this amendment is to stand between the marketplace and the people. It is to play gatekeeper. The purpose of the amendment is to hand to the U.S. Department of Justice unprecedented power in shaping the future of the telecommunications of America. This is not a light matter. This is not a matter of no consequence. This is an unprecedented power that Congress has never before granted to anyone. Supporters of this amendment have been asked to give us a precedent for their proposal, but they have not provided one. As we have learned from the debate last week, the precedent is not to be found in the MFJ decree. Justice only has an advisory role in the court action of Judge Greene, the same role that is reserved and preserved in this bill in its current form. It is not in our best interest to elevate or escalate that role. I will not get into the entire argument here; however, it is worth mentioning that a very insightful colloquy took place on this floor last Thursday night. I encourage all Senators to read the outstanding arguments presented by the two managers, the Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from South Carolina. This issue should have been put to rest that evening. But proponents of the amendment press ahead, ignoring the experience of those Senators most able to judge whether or not balance has been reached in this bill. Senator Hollings stood up and admitted he is a good witness to settle this case. I wish the other Senators would accept this. I do wish to briefly comment on a specific argument that was suggested Thursday night that handing the Justice Department unprecedented authority is somehow justified because we are passing unprecedented legislation. Throughout this debate, that particular argument has been advanced by a Senator, and that Senator has advised this body to proceed with caution on such a monumental piece of legislation. We should instead have caution before putting the Justice Department and its lawyers into a historic role of replacing Congress as the Nation's policymaker. The transition from monopoly to competition requires great care. Indeed, it requires clearly defined parameters. For this reason, we have developed a substantial checklist. It is in the legislation. It is here in specific detail. The checklist requires safeguards, so we put safeguards into the bill. Some have suggested that it requires experienced counsel, so we provide for an advisory role by the antitrust experts at the Department of Justice. Let me emphasize this final point about the advisory role. We provide for an advisory role by antitrust experts, as the Department of Justice. Contrast this to what the others are saying. Some Senators believe that the lawyers at the Justice Department are the only experts in competition in this country. I quote from a statement made last Wednesday evening. Lawyers from the Justice Department understand competition. The Antitrust Division of DOJ understands where and when competition is, and they are about the only ones in this town that, at least by my measurement, are out there fighting to make sure the marketplace is in fact working. That argument was made on the floor of this Senate. Mr. President, I find this statement hard to believe. If the Justice Department is the only entity in this town, or in America, that is fighting to make sure that the marketplace really works, why do we not hand over micromanagement of the entire economy to them? You could extend the logic of this amendment from the telecommunications industry--it is an important industry--if you have to have the Justice Department micromanaging that part of Government, why not apply it to all other commercial industries? Why not start with all of the other departments within the Antitrust Division--transportation, energy, agriculture, computers, finance, foreign commerce, professions, intellectual property--take the professions divisions. Do we hear the call from Congress to regulate lawyers from entering different types of practice? Can you imagine the uproar if Congress proposed to have the Department of Justice determine when each law firm could practice different types of law? Well, we do not have to imagine what they are proposing here. What they propose is to single out the most dynamic economic sector of the American economy, the sector undergoing the most rapid and dramatic change, the sector in which we have perhaps the most dramatic competitive advantage in a marketplace--a productive competitive marketplace, the world marketplace--and they want to add the ingredient of governmental cement to the process. We do not need to freeze and to repress the developments in our industry, we need to energize them, and having the Federal Communications Commission there is enough regulation, particularly when you have the Justice Department with its ability to be advice givers in antitrust. Then we are told that we should not fear more governmental involvement in the private sector. This is not some ``big bureaucracy,'' one Senator said. They only have 800 lawyers over there at the Antitrust Division. Imagine that, Mr. President. We are trying to convince the American people that a group of 800 Government attorneys are going to be helpful in providing productivity and competitiveness for our telecommunications industry. In fact, we tell the people that if these 800 lawyers do not help us by picking the economic winners and losers, then the fastest growing industry will fail and rain unknown harm on American consumers. Well, let us consider, stop and take a look at some of the decisions we have made in this bill that were influenced by the present policies of those 800 lawyers at the Department of Justice. Let us see if their past performance leaves us with nothing to worry about. Take the GTE consent decree. In 1982, GTE purchased a company called Sprint. The Department thought that these two companies getting together providing local and long distance services could be dangerous to competition, so they said that GTE, before the acquisition of Sprint could take place, would have to agree to a consent decree, with which the company complied. With that consent decree, 10 years later, in place, GTE had disposed of all the Sprint assets, and had divested itself of the entire acquisition. But the Justice Department refused to lift the decree. By 1992, GTE was essentially the same company that had existed before it had purchased Sprint when it had operated without the oversight of the Justice Department and its army of lawyers. But was the Justice Department willing to relinquish its control over a private business once the bureaucracy had worked its fingers into the situation? Obviously not. The Justice Department would not lift the decree, and has not lifted the decree to this very day, in spite of the fact that the acquisition of Sprint was the reason for the decree, and the divestiture of Sprint happened years ago. And GTE has returned to the kind of company it was prior to the acquisition. This issue of Sprint was a high priority for me during the course of drafting this bill. If Justice was not prepared to act properly on this matter, then I felt Congress should not reassert the authority of the Justice Department. I am happy to say that having passed the majority leader's deregulation amendment last week, the Senate has finally removed GTE from the micromanaging influences of the Department of Justice. [[Page S8158]] Please note, Mr. President, that the GTE consent decree was lifted by Congress--or will be lifted by Congress, not by 800 of the so-called I- am-here-to-help-you friendly lawyers at the Justice Department. In a case similar to the GTE case, a company called AirTouch has been relieved of its restrictions by this bill. This was a cellular carrier, once a subsidiary of PacTel. It has been an independent, publicly traded company since April 1994. Again, Justice would not remove the MFJ restrictions that were reserved for Bell companies. Again, Congress lifts the restrictions in this bill. It might be interesting to add here that after AirTouch submitted an opinion at Justice stating its position that it was no longer bound by the MFJ, a competitor in the long distance market filed a letter opposing MFJ relief for the cellular carrier. We cannot say for certain whether pressure from a long distance carrier played any role in the inaction of Justice--their failure to relieve AirTouch of the restrictions. We can say for certain that this is the exact type of legal and political pressure that will be finding its way into an inhibition of the productivity and competitiveness of the telecommunications industry if we layer bureaucracy upon bureaucracy, intermeddling, and seeking to micromanage what the marketplace can properly regulate. We can say for certain that we do not want this type of legal and political pressure, which would be intensified to a degree beyond comprehension if Justice is put in the position of deciding MFJ relief for all Bell companies. I am not saying, by any means, that 800 friendly lawyers at Justice do not know what they are doing. I am sure that they are experts in antitrust matters. Again, this amendment does not ask them to investigate antitrust. It authorizes them to implement congressional policy. The question is whether this is the proper role of Justice. I think the answer is clear, and I think the answer is resounding. I think the answer is simple. I think it is time for the Congress to make that answer unmistakable. The answer is no. Let Justice continue its role as a prosecutor of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. Let us consider another example in the cellular phone industry. As we all know, several years ago in every city and town, two licenses were granted for providers of cellular phone service. In each of the seven Bell service areas, the incumbent Bell company was granted one of the two licenses. But the playing field was not even. One of the great advantages of cellular is its independence of the traditional landline and wire infrastructure. Cellular operators are not subject to the limitation of the LATA boundaries. They are, by definition, mobile phone systems. This allows some cellular companies to offer creative price discounts to their customers. I say some companies are allowed to offer these creative price discounts, because others are not. In each service area, some carriers can offer customers one price for all calls, whether they are local or long distance. Some carriers cannot. The law says so. The Department did not act to change this policy. A combination of court decisions and the Department's inaction has left Bell cellular affiliates unnecessarily restricted to its wireline boundaries, while non-Bell competitors enjoy the complete benefits and flexibility that the wireless world presents. In fact, an interesting case developed that led to an incredible situation in Arizona. The non-Bell cellular carrier could offer the entire State in Arizona as a local call. The Bell affiliate could not, bound by the rules that govern wire transmissions. When the non-Bell operator sold its license to another Bell affiliate, that Bell affiliate, having purchased the cellular company, could no longer offer the entire State as a local call. Even though it was not even operating as a cellular carrier in its own landline region, the Bell affiliate operating in another part of the country had to respond to criterion that governed, according to the Department, its own operation in the area of the landline. So on one day, the cellular customer in Flagstaff could call Tucson for the price of a local call. Because the company that he was using was bought by a Bell company, the next day they were charged long distance rates. Now, the customers in Arizona were denied substantial savings because of the Department policy. It is that simple. That kind of officious intermeddling, micromanagement is counterproductive, distorting competition rather than promoting competition, and costs consumers benefits. The Department did not move aggressively to end this disparity. It is still undecided now on how to proceed. Making the decision is one of the tough things. The marketplace makes decisions efficiently and effectively. I believe competition also rewards those who make the right decision in the marketplace. The Department is not the group which, in the words of one Senator ``is out there fighting to make sure that the marketplace really works'' in that sense. The Department in Arizona and other cases like we just mentioned really stood between the benefits and the marketplace and the consumer. The Department denied Americans the opportunity to benefit from competition that we all believe brings out the best in each of us and the best in industry. Mr. President, once again, Congress must act to correct this senseless policy. Parity had to be reinstated, and Congress had a choice. Either we lift all restrictions on cellular carriers so that there be a level playing field, allowing cellular phone operators and proprietors of cellular companies, saying any call you make is like a local call. Or we could extend the artificial restrictions to all carriers. Now, the bill that we have here lifts those restrictions. This bill lifts all restrictions on the cellular industry and allows the cellular provider to say: Go ahead, make a long distance call for the same price a local call. Congress acts in its proper role, and the FCC is instructed to implement that policy. Supporters of this bill have expected the delicate balance contained in the bill to be severely tested. The first test was on the definition of public interest. There are many who think that 14 criteria are enough, and that should do it. There was a balance struck in the development of this bill. That balance was that we would protect the public interest by adding a definition including the public interest. I must admit, Mr. President, I find merit with the arguments of the Senator from Arizona, [Mr. McCain], among the cosponsors of the amendment that sought to take that public interest out of the bill. I am uncomfortable with the breadth of the term ``public interest,'' and I would otherwise prefer that we leave as little room for subjective analysis as possible; that the Congress, representatives of the people, actually specify the policy, and that policy be carried out by the FCC. But the managers called for a balance and they vowed to defend the balance. They are to be commended for defending that balance. I cannot think of two Senators who would better understand this matter than the two Senators who bring this bill to the floor. They may have brought it here kicking and screaming. This has been a hard bill to put together. They deserve our support in maintaining this balance. This amendment is one of the most serious assaults on the bill's balance. A vote in favor of this amendment would not only destroy the balance of the bill, it would destroy the reason for having the bill, and that is to promote more competition and to extricate from this arena the heavy hand of Government. The idea that when we look into the face of the future, we are so gripped with fear, we not only have to have regulation, but we have to have layered regulation, is an idea that we need to reject. Let me leave a few final observations. The committee has heard from over 30 entities with a direct involvement in this legislation. Senator Hollings, to his credit, went through the entire list last week. Sure, it involved some big companies engaged in big battles. We even have present monopolies battling against former monopolies. The Baby Bells are battling against AT&T, Mama Bell. But the American people know who has the biggest monopoly of all. The biggest monopoly of all is the monopoly of Government. The biggest battle [[Page S8159]] of this bill is not between the Baby Bells and Mama Bell, and the long distance companies and the local exchange carriers; the biggest battle is found right here in this amendment. It is between the Congress and the Department. It is a battle over who sets policy in this country. I received a copy of a letter sent to Chairman Pressler by Henry Geller, former communications policy advisor under President Reagan, who also happened to testify at one of the committee hearings. If the chairman has not already done so, and if the Senator from South Dakota does not mind, I would like to submit the entire letter for the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I would like to share the key point expressed: A main thrust of the pending legislative effort is to remove the antitrust court from the regulatory policymaking process and to have important policy guidelines set by the Congress and implemented by the established congressional delegates in this field, the FCC and the State commissions. . . . That is the sound approach of S. 652. In closing, what is the role of Congress, if not to set policy? Mr. Geller goes on to ask the same question I asked today. He put it this way: If these matters are to be settled under antitrust law, then why are we passing this legislation? One Senator keeps mentioning the length of this bill. Well, we could reduce these 140 pages down to one simple paragraph and let the Justice Department take over from there. But that is not what we want to do, nor is that what we ought to do. That is not to be the case because the role of Justice is to prosecute cases, not to manage or micromanage industry. Congress has the role of setting national policy. These two roles are fundamentally different, and I know which one I expect to fulfill on behalf of the people of Missouri. I will not vote to transfer policymaking to the Department of Justice, and I encourage the Senate to reject this amendment. Mr. President, in closing, I offer an observation: We are debating fundamental differences in attitudes. Some Senators say the competition is not the best regulator. I say the American people are the best regulator. Some Senators have looked into the future and they recoil in fear. They argue that the American people are afraid of the future, that they are begging for Government to protect them from the unknown. I have more faith in the American people. That faith springs from my belief that the enterprising spirit of our people will reap immeasurable benefits in our country, especially in this exciting industry. We do not wait for a busload of citizens to march into our office and demand this bill. We should pass this bill because Congress must also let the people have the benefits of the 21st century. We should pass this bill because this bill will provide a basis for our competitiveness and productivity, and the growth of this industry is vital to our future, and the benefits will go to every citizen in America. Mr. Dole addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. In order for some groups to have a specially reduced rate of services, other groups will have to pay and subsidize that rate for service. Now, whether those services are laudable or important or necessary or would not otherwise be available is debatable. There seems to be the thought that a lot of rural hospitals exist now without telecommunications access. I have been to many rural hospitals during the last year. I actually worked in several rural hospitals. They all have a number of the kinds of transmission devices that were very important to transmitting and receiving the kinds of things that would be involved in telecommunications. All of them had cable television, coaxial access, and the like. The point I would make here is that on page 132 of the bill, at lines 19 through 22, it provides that the rates would be affordable and not higher than incremental costs. This places the Government in a position of having to try to ascertain what affordable rates are, having arguments about what incremental costs are, and injects the Government back in the process of regulation at the micro level. I think it is counterproductive. I pointed out that it not only applies to schools, elementary and secondary, but it applies to libraries, and it does not mean that it is only public libraries. The statute just says ``libraries.'' I wonder if you might literally have a library that became an electronic library. It could be commercial in nature but it could provide information on the telecommunications highways but demand the right to do so at subsidized rates merely because it is mentioned in this section. It occurs to me that the promise of telecommunications deregulation means that access to new service, both digital and wireless, is going to be available to individuals around the country and institutions around the country. It also occurs to me that as that access is available and becomes cheaper as a result of the proliferation of services--and it is estimated that our costs in telecommunications will go down very substantially--a bureaucracy to start setting rates and to regulate the rates and to provide special subsidies for one part of our society as opposed to another is not only unnecessary but is counterproductive. So I stand in support of the fact that the marketplace will do a good job of providing service. And I just elevate for your consideration something of what has happened in terms of cellular phones. Some have indicated that because there are rural areas there would not be cellular phones. My State, which has substantial rural area, is covered with cellular phones. Virtually every part of the State is accessible to them. And I was charmed the other day, when meeting with some cellular phone operators, to find that one of the rural cellular operators includes in the package that is offered free long-distance phones so that if you pay for time on your cellular telephone, you can call anywhere you want to in the United States of America at the same rate you can call the next phone. This is sort of the prejudice that they are alleging, I suppose, is going to ruin us if we do not have this micromanagement in the telecom- munications industry. That is not prejudice at all. That is just the fact that entrepreneurs are at work in rural America as well as they are in urban America, and as a matter of fact in rural America sometimes telecommunications services are substantially enhanced and can even be at a competitive advantage, comparably stronger, offered with a more attractive array of advantages and features, than they would in the urban setting. It is with that in mind I think this amendment is well taken, that I think it is unnecessary to set rates and to have micromanagement and special privileges and subsidies built into this bill at a time when telecommunications is going to be more and more available as a result of technology, when the rates will be going down as a result of a proliferation of providers and services. And for us to single out a few groups, some of them inordinately narrow, perhaps providing additional advantages to public schools as opposed to private schools, some of them inordinately broad, providing this subsidy to all libraries, however they may be defined or constituted, it seems to me this section would be a section without which we could do well. And for that reason I support the amendment as proposed by the Senator from Arizona. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. Some provisions of the legislation I believe are not necessary would promote bureaucratic intervention and intermeddling in the system. I believe the provisions of the legislation which will provide for subsidies and will provide for special privileges for certain entities is unnecessary. I believe that the suggestion that this is similar to the airline industry is misleading and counterproductive. The truth of the matter is that technology is going to change dramatically the impact of distances as it relates to the transmission of data and information. If you are bouncing information off the satellite, it does not matter whether you are in a rural area or in an urban area. It does not matter whether you are in a remote area or an approximate area. They are all equally accessible in that respect. So to speak about the airline industry and the amount of traffic that is generated to one area, and that that traffic somehow does not justify a lower cost to that area like it does another area ignores the fact that the transmission of data, especially the wireless transmission of data, simply really does not have costs related to the location of the receiver of the data. The data can be transmitted or received via satellite regardless of the location. So I do not think it is particularly instructive to try to get bogged down in the debate over airline deregulation here. We are talking about a different technology. And arguments which are locked into the technology of the past are based on ideas like the airline technology and what it takes to transmit a passenger instead of transmitting data, those are misleading arguments. The provision which is, I think, noble in its objective to try to help us have educational institutions with good access and health institutions with good access would require a costly accounting procedure and intermeddling by governmental entities to try to determine what would be ``reasonable rates'' or what would be ``incremental costs.'' If we say that elementary schools, secondary schools, libraries--and, incidentally, that is not public libraries in the legislation. The word ``libraries'' is used without reference to whether it is public or private--if we say that they are entitled to special rates for the transmission of data or communications which they would choose to transmit or provide, it seems to me that we have set up a provision which requires governmental rate setting, governmental cost accounting, and massive and significant intervention of the Government in this process. And if those rates are established by the Government at less than the full cost of [[Page S7975]] the proceeding, that means everyone else who uses the system is going to be subsidizing the overall cost of these institutions and these entities. Much has been made of the rural setting and the fact that it might be a lot more expensive according to some that in order to have provision of telecommunications to rural settings----

Mr. ASHCROFT. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, as the new Republican Congress attempts to put government back into the hands of the people and bring back a sense of independence rather than dependence for so many citizens, it is important to recognize those individuals who have done their part at the community level, the very core of our society, to promote responsibility in others. I am proud to recognize a Missourian from Kansas City, Mr. Virgil Bower, known to most as ``Skip,'' who has devoted his life to influencing others and serving as a community activist, volunteer, and role model in Missouri for over 60 years. Mr. Bower began his volunteer service in 1934 as Scoutmaster to Boy Scout Troop 122, and continues to serve to this day. He has been in the banking business in North Kansas City since 1948, serving as a public relations representative. Throughout his career he has remained active in civic organizations. He has been publicly recognized as an outstanding citizen and community leader, having even been called a legend in the North Kansas City area. Mr. Bower is a man of dignity and humility who has worked hard. Shortly after he graduated from high school, Mr. Bower got a job washing dishes in a cafeteria in downtown Kansas City. He saved enough money to attend college and graduated from William Jewell in 1933. He began his career as a school teacher and found gratification in influencing and motivating young people to strive for excellence. He later became the principal of McElroy Dagg Elementary School, only to have his tenure cut short by the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Like so many young men, Mr. Bower answered the call of his country and served in World War II as an officer in the Navy. Skip Bower has influenced many young people throughout the years, and many have followed in his footsteps, becoming community volunteers and serving in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Recently, I received a letter from a man from Kansas City whose father died when he was very young. He was fortunate enough to join Boy Scout Troop 122 under Mr. Bower, who proved to be a source of guidance and influence. The young man grew up to be a successful citizen who attributes his sense of civic duty and leadership to Skip Bower. But that is just one example of how Skip Bower influenced a life and saw a young person grow into a responsible, productive citizen. There have been many more. For over 60 years Mr. Bower has quietly continued to touch the lives of students, Scouts, and North Kansas City citizens who know him from his banking job, the Kiwanis Club, or various other community activities. His accomplishments have not gone unrecognized. He was recently selected by Newschannel 4 as one of Kansas City's Symbols of Caregiving, an award reserved for 11 outstanding citizens who provide an example of hope and service for everyone. The Kansas City Northland Regional Chamber of Commerce sponsors the Virgil Bower Award for Community Service, named in his honor. Now in retirement at the age of 87, Mr. Bower continues to work half days greeting customers at Boatman's Bank in Kansas City. He takes pride in his work, and knows most of the customers who come through the door, as well as most people in North Kansas City. His wife of 50 years died over 10 years ago, but her portrait sits in his living room as a reminder of the life they shared. The words ``loyal, committed, and dedicated'' are commonly used to describe Skip Bower. He deserves our praise and recognition for the outstanding contributions he has made to Kansas City and America. Mr. Bower will leave a legacy of morality, responsibility, service, and leadership.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in morning business to submit for passage a joint resolution that relates to Congressional term limits and the potential of States to have term limits and the right of the States to be involved in creating term limits for Members of the U.S. Congress. On November 29 of last year, the Clinton administration argued before the Supreme Court of the United States that States should not have the right to limit congressional terms. Thus, the executive branch has spoken, and spoken against the right of the states and of the people to limit the number of terms individuals may serve in the U.S. Congress. Earlier this week, on Tuesday, in a 5-4 decision entitled The State of Arkansas versus Hill, the United States Supreme Court ruled that States do not have the authority to limit the number of terms congressional representatives may serve. The judicial branch has spoken. Both the executive branch, through the Clinton administration, and the judicial branch, have spoken against the right of States and of the people to limit the terms of individuals who represent States and districts in the U.S. Congress. There is only one hope for the overwhelming number of people in this country who endorse term limits. If Congress extends them the opportunity to amend the United States Constitution in a way that would allow individual States to limit the terms Members of Congress may serve, then the people will have spoken. There has been much debate about term limits in this Congress. Earlier in the year, the House of Representatives fell well short of the two-thirds majority required to forward to the people a constitutional amendment on term limits. Of the 290-vote margin required for a constitutional amendment, they only had 227 votes. What would normally be a significant majority vote in the House, was clearly not enough to make sure that States would have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment permitting term limits. Last January, I introduced a constitutional amendment that would have limited Members of Congress to three terms in the House and two terms in the Senate. Today, as a result of its defeat and of the administration's refusal to recognize the will of constitutional amendment. An amendment that would simply give States the explicit right to limit congressional terms. It would not mandate that any State limit the nature or extent of the terms of the individuals who represent it in the Congress, but would give the States, if they chose to do so, the right to limit the Members' terms who represent that State. In the Arkansas case, which was announced earlier this week, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, ``Where the Constitution is silent it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.'' I believe that he is correct. Where the Constitution does not speak, the people and their States should have a right. Unfortunately, a majority of Supreme Court Justices did not agree with Justice Thomas. In order to supply them with what they appear to require, I believe we should allow the Constitution a way to shout out ``freedom.'' This is a freedom the American people want and a freedom the American people understand is necessary. More than 3 out of 4 people in the United States endorse the concept of term limits. They have watched individuals come to Washington and spend time here, captivated by the Beltway logic, the spending habits and the power that exists in this city. The people of America know that the talent pool in America is substantial and there are many who ought to have the opportunity of serving in the U.S. Congress. Furthermore, they know that term limits would make sure that individuals who go to Washington return someday to live under the very laws that they enact. I believe the people in the various States of this Republic should have the opportunity to limit the terms of those who serve them in the U.S. Congress. In light of the fact that the administration has argued against term limits, the executive branch is not going to support term limits, and because the judicial branch has ruled conclusively now in the United States Supreme Court that the States have no constitutional authority, it is up to those of us who serve in the U.S. Congress to do something to extend to the people their right to speak. This is the house of the people. This Congress is the place where the voice of the people can, and should, be heard. Let us provide another avenue where the voice of the people regarding this important matter can be heard. It is my pleasure to announce that today I am proposing a joint resolution to be enacted or passed by a two-thirds vote of each Chamber of Congress, which merely reads: ``Section 1. Each State or the people thereof may prescribe the maximum number of terms to which a person may be elected or appointed to the Senate of the United States. ``Section 2. Each State or the people thereof may prescribe the maximum number of terms to which a person may be elected to the House of Representatives of the United States. ``Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.''. Obviously section 3 is simply the ratification clause. It is a simple amendment to accord to the people of the United States of America a profound right--the right to make sure that the individuals who represent them in this body and in the House of Representatives are people who stay in touch with their needs and concerns, the aspirations, the hopes and the wishes of those who sent them here. The right to limit the terms of Members of the U.S. Senate and the right to limit the terms of those individuals who represent districts in our States in the U.S. House of Representatives. Because that right has been rejected--argued against by the executive branch, the Clinton administration, and ruled against by the U.S. Supreme Court--we, the Members of the U.S. Congress, are forced to accord that right to the people. We must at least give them the opportunity to vote on that right by sending to them this joint resolution on the right of States and individuals to limit Members' terms who serve the States and the districts of those States in the U.S. Congress. It is a profoundly important expression of our confidence in the people of this country to extend to them the right to be involved in making this judgment. I submit this joint resolution today in the hopes that democracy will continue to flourish as people have greater opportunities to be involved.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, may I take this opportunity to commend the senior Senator from the State of Missouri for his persistence on a most important matter as it relates to health care of Americans. I know his diligence in this area has resulted from [[Page S7624]] a long time of study and an understanding of medical recordkeeping. I am pleased to have the opportunity to commend him and to thank him for his performance in this respect.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I would like to congratulate a Missourian who has dedicated his life to helping students pursue the knowledge and gifts of higher education. He is retiring after 40 years of service to Southwest Missouri State University, located in my hometown of Springfield, MO. Duane G. Meyer has spent his entire postgraduate teaching career at Southwest Missouri State University, serving as a teacher for 18 years and an administrator for 22 years, including service from 1971-83 as the sixth president of Southwest Missouri State. Dr. Meyer was born on June 29, 1926, in Carroll, IA, and earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Dubuque in Dubuque, IA. He went on to earn a master's degree and a Ph.D. from the University of Iowa. In 1955, Dr. Meyer arrived in Springfield to begin his career as an assistant professor and later professor of history. In 1961, he was appointed dean of faculties, a post he held until 1971. During that time, Dr. Meyer served as acting president of the university twice, in 1964 and 1970. In 1971, Duane Meyer was selected to be the sixth president of the school. During his 12 years as president, Southwest Missouri State University experienced unprecedented growth and success. The school was renamed Southwest Missouri State University in 1972 through an enactment of the Missouri General Assembly. Enrollment increased to all time highs every year of his tenure except one, and SMSU became the second largest 4-year public institution in the State of Missouri. Other notable landmarks of Dr. Meyer's tenure include the creation and implementation of an academic master plan, the creation of a business school, and the building of a new student event center. The SMSU athletic program began competition in NCAA Division One competition during his presidency. After his retirement as president of the university, Dr. Meyer continued to serve Southwest Missouri State as a professor of history and president emeritus. He served the State of Missouri as a member of the Missouri Council on Public Higher Education Board. My colleague in the Senate, then-governor Kit Bond, appointed Dr. Meyer to serve on the Missouri Commission on Higher Education. Dr. Meyer has also written two textbooks that are still used in classrooms today, including ``The Heritage of Missouri: A History.'' Throughout his 42-year career, Dr. Duane G. Meyer served the students and faculty of Southwest Missouri State University and the surrounding communities with dedication and pride. As a former teaching colleague of Dr. Meyer at SMSU, I am grateful to him for his selfless labors and salute his work and the role he played in the education of thousands of students from Missouri and across America.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the budget resolution setting the spending levels for the next 5 years, we do so with the knowledge that one of our greatest challenges is moving the Nation's needy from governmental dependence to economic independence. One of our challenges is to ensure that hope and opportunity are defining characteristics for all Americans. This was the challenge 30 years ago when the great movement reshaping world politics was the end of colonialism. John Kennedy celebrated the ``desire to be independent,'' as the ``single most important force in the world.'' Eventually this movement revealed its power from Asia to Africa to South America. The problem with imperialism was not just its economic exploitation, it was its influence on culture. It undermined traditional ways and institutions, and it was inconsistent with human dignity. Why? Because imperialism rewarded passivity and encouraged dependence, required citizens to live by the rules of a distant elite. It demanded people be docile in the face of a system that they could not change. It was an attack, not just on national sovereignty, but on national character. What our Washington-based welfare system has done, particularly to women and children, has been to fashion a new form of colonialism. It created an underclass that is paid to play by the rules that lead to dependence, rather than act with independence and dignity. Our welfare system rewards behavior that keeps people powerless. It thwarts the efforts of private and religious charitable organizations to care for the needy. It discourages the genuine compassion of the American people. Our welfare system has waged a war against the human spirit. Our goal in welfare should not be to maintain an ``underclass" in as comfortable as possible circumstances. Yet that is precisely what our welfare system has done. Cash benefits anesthetize their suffering. Food stamps relieve their hunger. Health care and housing are provided. But the hope, the dignity, and the integrity of independence are forgotten. Consider, just briefly, what our current welfare system has wrought. The numbers alone are enough to numb the senses. Since 1965, we have spent more than $5 trillion, a cost higher than that of waging the Second World War--fighting poverty. Yet today, there are more people, a greater percentage of Americans, living in poverty than ever before. And our safety net has not acted well, the safety net has become more like quicksand. In 1965, when President Johnson launched the war on poverty, there were approximately 14.7 million children in poverty. They constituted about one in every five children in America. But in 1993, there was a greater percentage of children in poverty than there were in 1965 when the Great Society programs were launched. It is pretty clear that the Great Society experiment has not been so great for America's children. Of all age groups in the nation today, children are the most likely to be poor. In 1991, a study of the poverty rates in eight industrialized nations revealed that American children were almost three times as likely to be poor as children from the other nations studied. The character of the poverty we face today is also a more deeply entrenched poverty in which generations of people are born, live, and die without the experience of holding a job, of owning a home, or of growing up with a father's love and discipline. Go to our inner cities--or just a few blocks from this building--and you will meet a generation fed on welfare and food stamps, but starved for nurture and hope. You will meet young teens in their third pregnancy. You will meet children who are not only without a father, but do not know any children with a father. You will talk with sixth graders who do not know how many inches there are in a foot--having never seen a ruler--and with first graders who do not know their ABC's because no one ever took the time to teach them. The political elites that have spent and taxed in recent decades have redistributed wealth beyond the dreams of Roosevelt and Johnson combined. But in the Government's war on poverty, poverty is winning and the casualties are the poor, and the casualties are our children. The casualties also include the future, because we have piled budget after budget high with debt. Hope and opportunity are missing in action. Programs and policies that once were judged by the height of their spending must now be judged by the depth of their failure. This is no longer a source of serious debate, no longer a matter of partisan politics, but it is a matter of national concern--it is a concern that has been reflected in our news magazines, on the covers of U.S. News and Newsweek, and Time. [[Page S7238]] I have a belief that is confirmed by the record of our times, and it is this: That the greatest, most insistent human need is not the need for subsistence, nor handouts, nor dependence--it is the need for independence. Not the kind of independence that suggests one person can live without another. No, quite the opposite. The independence of which I speak is the independence born of economic self-sufficiency and opportunity. The independence to dream, to pursue and fulfill our deepest wishes and our personal potential. This is something, Mr. President, that social architects cannot build, they cannot plan. It is not structure, it is spirit. It is something that our welfare system has lacked for the last 30 years as we have sought to merely spend our way into a new kind of opportunity. But we have spent our way past opportunity into peril. I believe it is time again to create a welfare system that helps, not hurts, those it seeks to serve. And such a system would be a major part in controlling the spending which has plagued this Nation and now threatens future generations. A system that helps rather than hurts. A system that serves is the standard by which welfare reform must be judged, not just the utopian ideal. Today, I introduced the Communities Involved in Caring Act. We call it CIVIC. We do not expect this Act--a package of 5 bills--to be the long-awaited answer to all of our welfare problems by itself. But we do believe that it is a significant step toward restoring opportunities of dignity through independence and access to the world of upward mobility. The act is predicated on three fundamental beliefs: First, that States need the maximum flexibility possible to reform welfare systems. Second, that our intermediary organizations--especially private and religious charitable organizations--need to be utilized in welfare reform. Third, that intermediary organizations need not only money, but they need volunteers; they need the personal participation of individuals to flourish. The CIVIC Act which I introduced earlier today would block grant Washington's four main welfare entitlement programs--AFDC, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, and Medicaid--to the States. It starts by capping the spending on AFDC, Food Stamps, and SSI, and then Medicaid would be limited in growth to 105 percent each year--meaning of 105 percent of each previous year. Given the fact that Medicaid has been growing at well over 10 percent a year, this would be substantial restraint in the program's growth, but not a cut in the program. The programs under the block grants would also be extricated from their existing bureaucracies--at HHS, Agriculture, etc.--and turned over to the Department of the Treasury to be distributed to the States. The unique feature of this proposal is that the money would go directly from the Department of the Treasury to the States, and it would not be a part of any bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. that would consume much of the money before it ever gets to the States. Mr. President, Treasury's oversight role would be minimal because the only qualifications on the block grants would be: First, that States would be required to require welfare recipients to work. How best to do that. The nature of the work. The level of the participation. All of those issues should be and would be left to the States to determine; and Second, that States that decrease illegitimacy, using existing governmental statistics as a measure, will be able to use a portion of their block grant for elementary or secondary education or any other purpose they desire. The CIVIC Act also provides explicit authority for States to contract with nongovernmental organizations, including private and religious charitable organizations, and other institutions, in the effort to help solve the welfare problem. We have all heard the stories of small organizations that are hugely successful in helping America's poor. Unfortunately, many of these programs have been constrained from receiving Federal funds because all too often those Federal funds would require radical changes in their beliefs, their structure, their facilities, their program, or their organization--changes that would rob these programs of the very characteristics and attitudes that make them successful. However, under the CIVIC Act, States would be able to utilize their Federal block grant funds by either contracting with these organizations directly or by giving welfare recipients certificates so that they could choose which programs to get involved in. The final element of the CIVIC Act allows individuals who volunteer at least 50 hours per year, or approximately 1 hour a week, to charitable institutions that serve the needy eligible for a $500 tax credit for monetary donations to such charitable organizations. Just as the welfare recipients should work for their benefits, so the citizens who want enhanced tax benefits for their contributions should also work and volunteer in the organizations they contribute to. Mr. President, it is all about opportunity; it is about working together. When he traveled through America more than 100 years ago, the great French observer, Alexis de Tocqueville, was struck by how caring Americans were for each other. The Americans . . . regard for themselves, constantly prompts them to assist one another and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property for the welfare of others. What the Act I introduced today seeks is to undo 30 years of Washington discouraging that very basic American instinct to help one another. The ideas in the Act are not new. They are, in fact, old ideas in America. They have been tested and found successful. About 100 years ago, cities like New York were littered with alcoholics and addicts. Orphaned children roamed the streets. And if all of New York City's liquor shops, houses of prostitution, gambling houses, and other low-life establishments had been placed on a single street, they would have extended from Manhattan's City Hall to the City of White Plains more than 30 miles away. On that street, there would have been a robbery every 165 yards and a murder every half mile. And in Brooklyn, one out of every ten people got food from public storehouses. These pathologies met their match, Mr. President, in society's intermediary, nongovernmental, voluntary, private institutions of charity and assistance. Their warm-hearted and hard- headed approaches--and you can have a warm heart and a hard head when it comes to making sure that we change such circumstances--helped save women and children and men. As the historian Marvin Olasky notes, ``The solutions these reforms came up with forestalled an epidemic of illegitimacy and saved thousands of children from misery.'' I believe that as we confront our own social pathologies today, we must do it the same way--with the ideas that have worked in the past and yet with new ideas for the 1990's--even though they may have been the standard fare of the 1890's. We must meet our challenges with a greater role for States and a greater role for intermediary institutions, nongovernmental organizations, private charities--both larger ones like the Salvation Army and Goodwill, and smaller ones like Best Friends and the Sunshine Mission. So while the CIVIC Act begins the process of moving welfare from Washington to the States, it also begins the vital task of reinvigorating our private, nongovernmental organizations which can help meet the deepest needs of our citizens, organizations that we know will help solve our welfare problems. The change that we want to see will not occur overnight. Neither will it come without hard work or thorough debate. The end of colonialism was not an easy process either. For independence means risk, the sacrifice of security. Well, security, coupled with dependency is a bad bargain. Economic mobility means work; it means hard work. But no nation and no people who have ever tasted the sweet fruits of freedom has ever called for a return to its colonial dependency. I believe that if we want to make sure that we are free and we remain free, we must reform the welfare system. It can be a part of a large reform in which we reform the financial integrity of America, for we cannot hold [[Page S7239]] hostage future generations to the spending of the present. As we seek to pass the budget in the hours ahead in this Chamber, it will be a pleasure to do so in a way that not only puts us on a footing of sound financial integrity, but establishes us on a path toward economic independence and opportunity for individuals --through a reformed welfare system, characterized by block grants maximizing the States' flexibility and innovation, and characterized by Government joining hands with nongovernmental agencies in order to bring to the battle the energies and talents of this great Nation's private citizens. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for her kind words.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the budget resolution, setting spending levels for the next 5 years, we do so with the knowledge that one of our greatest challenges is moving our Nation's needy from governmental dependence to economic independence. One of our challenges is to ensure that hope and opportunity are defining characteristics of all Americans. This was the challenge 30 years ago, when the great movement reshaping world politics was the end of colonialism. John Kennedy celebrated the ``desire to be independent,'' as the ``single most important force in the world.'' Eventually this movement revealed its power from Asia to Africa to South America. The problem with imperialism was not just its economic exploitation. it was its influence on culture. It undermined traditional ways and institutions. It was inconsistent with human dignity. Why? Because imperialism rewarded passivity and encouraged dependence. It required citizens to live by the rules of a distant elite. It demanded people be docile in the face of a system that they could not change. It was an attack, not just on national sovereignty, but on national character. What our Washington-based welfare system has done, particularly to women and children, has been to fashion a new form of colonialism. It created an underclass that is paid to play by rules that lead to dependence. It rewards behavior that keeps them powerless. It thwarts the efforts of private and religious charitable organizations to care for the needy. It discourages the genuine compassion of the American people. It has waged war against the human spirit. Our goal in welfare should not be to maintain the underclass as comfortably as possible as wards of the state. Yet that is precisely what has been done. Cash benefits anesthetize their suffering. Food stamps relieve [[Page S7246]] their hunger. Health care and housing are provided. But the hope, dignity, and integrity of independence are forgotten. Consider, just briefly, what our current welfare system has wrought. The numbers alone are enough to numb the senses. Since 1965, we've spend more than $5 trillion--a cost higher than that of waging the second world war--fighting poverty. Yet today, there are more people living in poverty than ever before, and our safety net has become more like quicksand. In 1965, when President Johnson launched the War on Poverty, there were approximately 14.7 million children in poverty. They constituted about one of every five children in America. In 1993, there were 14.6 million children in poverty. They constitute a little more than one in every five American children. Of all age groups, children are the most likely to be poor. In 1991, a study of the poverty rates in eight industrialized nations revealed that American children were almost three times as likely to be poor as children from the other nations studied. The character of the poverty we face today is a deeper, more entrenched poverty in which generations of people are born, live, and die without the experience of holding a job, owning a home, or growing up with a father's love and discipline. Go into our inner cities--go just blocks from here--and you will meet a generation fed on welfare and food stamps but starved of nurture and hope. You will meet young teens in their third pregnancy. You will meet children who are not only without a father, but do not know anyone who has a father. You will talk with sixth-graders who do not know how many inches are in a foot, having never seen a ruler, and with first-graders who do not know their ABC's or numbers because no one ever took the time to teach them. Thirty years ago, Robert Kennedy reflected on welfare and said this: Opponents of welfare have always said that welfare is degrading, both to the giver and the recipient. They have said that it destroys self-respect, that it lowers incentive, that it is contrary to American ideals. Most of us deprecated and disregarded these criticisms. People were in need; obviously, we felt, to help people in trouble was the right thing to do. But in our urge to help, we also disregarded elementary fact. For the criticisms of welfare do have a center of truth, and they are confirmed by the evidence. Robert Kennedy's warnings were not heeded. The political elites that followed him have spent, and taxed, and redistributed wealth beyond the dreams of Roosevelt and Johnson combined. But in the Government's war on poverty, poverty is winning and the casualties are the poor. Hope and opportunity are missing in action. Programs and policies that once were judged by the height of their aspirations must now be judged by the depth of their failure. I have a belief that is confirmed by the record of our times. It is this: The greatest, most insistent human need is not subsistence, not hand-outs, not dependence, but independence. Not the kind of independence that suggests people do not need one another or that suggests that every man is an island. Quite the opposite, the independence of which I speak is the independence born of economic self-sufficiency and opportunity. The independence to dream, pursue, and fulfill our deepest wishes and our personal potential. This is something that the social architects cannot plan or build. It is not structure, it is spirit. It is something that our welfare system has lacked for at least the past 30 years. It is a reality that we continue to ignore only at our peril. We stand at a time of unique opportunity. There is a mainstream movement of values sweeping this land. It is a movement reflected on the covers of popular magazines like Newsweek and US News who lament the absence of shame and the lack of fathers. I believe it is time again to create a welfare system that helps, not hurts those it seeks to serve. That is the standard against which reform must be judged--not some utopian ideal, but the cold, hard realities of our present welfare system. Today I will introduce the Communities Involved in Caring [CIVIC] Act. We have neither the aspiration nor the expectation that it alone is the long-awaited answer to our welfare problems. But we do believe that it is a significant step toward restoring the opportunities of dignity through independence and the access to the world of upward mobility. This act is predicated on three fundamental beliefs. First, that States need to be given maximum flexibility in reforming their welfare systems. Second, that our intermediary organizations--especially private and religious charitable organizations--need to be utilized in welfare reform. Third, that intermediary organizations need not only money, but volunteers, to flourish. block grants The CIVIC Act block-grants Washington's four main welfare entitlement programs--AFDC, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, and Medicaid--to the States. It does this first by capping the spending on AFDC, food stamps, and SSI at either an average of fiscal year 1992-94 levels, or at fiscal year 1994 levels, whichever is higher. This cap would then apply for the next 5 years. For Medicaid, which is currently growing at rates exceeding 10 percent per year, spending would be capped at a rolling 5-percent increase for the next 5 years. These programs would then be extricated from their existing bureaucracies--HHS, Agriculture, et cetera--and given to the Department of Treasury to distribute to the States. Treasury's oversight role would be minimal because the only qualifications on the block grants would be the following. First, States would be required to make welfare recipients work. How best to do that. The nature of the work. The level of participation. All of those issues would be left to the States to determine. Second, States which decrease illegitimacy, using existing governmental statistics, will be able to use a portion of their block grant for elementary and secondary education or any other function they desire. involvement of intermediary institutions The CIVIC Act also provides explicit authority for States to contract with intermediary organizations--including private and religious charitable organizations--to help solve the welfare problem. We have all heard the stories of small organizations that are hugely successful in helping America's poor. Unfortunately, many of those programs have been constrained from receiving Federal funds because all too often those Federal funds would require radical changes in the program--changes that would rob the programs of the very characteristics that make them successful. Under the CIVIC Act, States would be able to utilize their Federal bloc-grant funds by either contracting with these organizations directly or by giving welfare recipients certificates so that they can choose which programs to get involved in. tax credit eligibility for volunteering at charitable organizations The final part of the CIVIC Act makes those people who volunteer at least 50 hours per year, or approximately 1 hour per week, to institutions that serve the needy, eligible for a $500 tax credit for monetary donations to such charitable organizations. Just as welfare recipients should work for their benefits, so our citizenry should work for charitable organizations in order to receive a tax credit. It is all about responsibility. It is all about opportunity. When he travelled through America more than 100 years ago, the great French observer Alexis de Tocqueville was struck by how caring Americans were for each other. ``The Americans, . . . regard for themselves,'' he wrote, ``constantly prompts them to assist one another and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property to the welfare of [others].'' What this act seeks to undo is 30 years of Washington discouraging that very basic American instinct to help one another. These ideas are not new ideas. They are, in fact, ideas that have been tried, tested, and found successful. About a hundred years ago in cities like New York, alcoholics and addicts littered the sidewalks. Orphaned children roamed the streets. And if all New York City's liquor shops, houses of prostitution, gambling houses, and other low-life establishments would have been placed on a single street, the city of White Plains more than 30 miles away. On that street, there would have been a robbery every 165 yards and a murder every half mile. And in Brooklyn, 1 out of every 10 people got food from public storehouses. These pathologies met their match through society's intermediary, nongovernmental, organizations. Their warm-hearted and hard-headed approaches helped save women and children and men. As the historian Marvin Olasky notes, ``The solutions these reforms came up with forestalled an epidemic of illegitimacy and saved thousands of children from misery.'' I believe that as we confront our own social pathologies, we must, we must do it the same way--with new ideas for the 1990's that were the standard fare of the 1890's. We must meet our challenges with a greater role for States and a greater role for intermediary organizations--both larger ones like the Salvation Army and the Goodwill and smaller ones like Best Friends and the Sunshine Mission. So while the CIVIC Act begins the process of moving welfare from Washington to the States, it also begins the vital task of reinvigorating our intermediary organizations--organizations which can help meet people's deepest needs, organizations that we know will help solve our welfare problems. The change that we want to see will not occur overnight. Neither will it come without hard work and thorough debate. The end of colonialism was not an easy process either. For independence means risk, the sacrifice of security. Economic mobility means work, hard work. But no nation and no people who have ever tasted the sweet fruits of freedom has called for the return of its colonial rulers.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming. I must say that his remarks are both compelling and accurate and reflect the opportunity which we face in the U.S. Senate and for which the people sent us to the U.S. Senate. A job well done and items well stated, because they understand what happened here on May 11, just a few days ago, when Republicans annunciated their view for a brighter economic future, for financial stability, for fiscal integrity for the United States of America. On that day, Senator Domenici, and other members of the Budget Committee, passed a resolution that would reduce spending over the course of the next few years by a trillion dollars. It is a budget resolution that brings our budget into balance by the year 2002. When this happens, it will be eligible for categorization as one of the eight wonders of the world. It is one of those things people have said could not be done. But free people have the right to shape the tomorrows in which they live, and if we want to shape a tomorrow in which our children will live in a constructive way, we will have that kind of discipline which puts us on a balanced budget path and an enforceable balanced budget path by the year 2000 which sets us on a path for fiscal sanity and economic responsibility. The plan that has been annunciated, the plan brought forth by Senator Domenici, is a plan for which he and members of the committee should be commended. I personally want to make that special effort to thank them. These plans just do not happen in a vacuum. Someone has to make the tough judgments, someone has to be willing to take the tough stand, someone has to be willing to make the commitment, and Senator Domenici has done so. His resolve, his commitment, his dedication, his courage has not been matched on the other side of the aisle. What has been the Democratic response to the Republican plan? Well, we have had ad hominem attacks, misleading charges, empty rhetoric. At this momentous time in our history that requires decision, that requires courage, that requires commitment, the Democratic Party seems committed only to partisanship and to politics. So I think it is important that we ask again today where is their alternative? Where is their plan for a balanced budget? You and I and other Members in this Chamber endured a balanced budget debate, and we fell 1 vote short--1 vote short--because many on the Democratic side changed their votes to vote against a balanced budget this year. They said over and over again, ``All we need is the will and the courage, and the determination to balance the budget. We don't need an amendment.'' Well, now we have Senator Domenici who stands up and announces with will, courage and determination a balanced budget. And where are those who would support the balanced budget? They are not to be found. They were not to be found in the vote for the balanced budget amendment, and they are not to be found in the discussion of an actual balanced budget--except for criticism, except for partisanship. It is time that we have a united, bipartisan effort to achieve a balanced budget. I suggest that critics of our balanced budget plan, brought forward by Senator Domenici, ought to heed the counsel of the 16th President of the United States. In Lincoln's words, he put it this way: Those have a right to criticize who have a heart to help. You have a right to criticize if you have a heart to help. Well, we confront a fiscal crisis as great as any threat that we have confronted in this Nation, any threat we have ever faced, and calls for the maintenance of the status quo are insufficient. They are, in fact, irresponsible. Those who would criticize the move toward responsibility by instituting or institutionalizing the status quo are really saying they want to embrace irresponsibility. Inaction today will ensure decline for America tomorrow. Now, the story of our financial crisis has been told many times on this floor, but it bears repeating. If we do not act dramatically and quickly to balance the budget of the United States, we will find ourselves in a position of bankruptcy. If unreformed Medicare will be bankrupt in just 6 years, is this the alarmist position of partisan politicians? No, this is the announced report of the board of trustees of the fund which supports Medicare. And three members of that board are members of the President's Cabinet. There is a crisis in Medicare funding. We will not have the resources in the hospital trust fund in order to make the payments if something is not done. Yet, what has been the response of those who have said they want to balance the budget, but all we need is the will, the determination and the commitment to do it, and we do not need the balanced budget amendment? Well, they are just criticizing Senator Domenici and his report that would provide us an opportunity, a roadmap, which would carry us to a balanced budget. Medicare will be bankrupt in just 6 years. There is a real need for commitment and action. Without changes, we face a tremendous load of debt, and not only debt but the interest payments on the debt. In 2 more years, we will be paying more interest on the national debt than we spend in the entire defense budget of the United States of America. That seems incomprehensible, that just the interest on the national debt will be more than we spend in defending the interests of this country worldwide. By the year 2000, the national debt will reach close to $7 trillion. We must act now to balance the budget. We cannot continue to mortgage the future of the children of this country because we refuse to have the discipline to balance our budget. Sadly, children who are born this year will end up paying just a little short of $200,000 in interest on the debt over their lifetime-- each child. The figure, according to the statisticians is $187,150 of interest that each child will have to pay on the national debt. It is time for their individual futures and our national future to be saved. We must act in the coming weeks and months. Now, through shared sacrifice we can ensure that the coming generation of Americans will share in the abundant riches and opportunities of this country if we have the discipline to restrain the debt. What is the proposal of the Republican Party? How would it affect America, and how would it change Government therapeutically? How would it benefit us so we can do what we ought to do on behalf of the children of this country? What is our plan? First, freeze congressional salaries, unless the budget is balanced by the year 2002. Second, cut foreign aid. Third, eliminate a number of unnecessary and duplicative programs. Just yesterday in the Foreign Relations Committee, there was a plan to consolidate the voices of America, the different representations of this country around the globe under the Secretary of State, saving almost $5 billion over the next 5 years. Abolishing nonessential governmental agencies. Democratic attacks aside, our plan provides sufficient funds to maintain the health and integrity of a whole range of important governmental services. These figures are important because those who would be the speakers of fear and the sowers of discontent, and [[Page S6842]] would suggest that our plan will not work, should understand that under the Republican proposal, Medicare will increase by 59 percent over the 7- year life of the plan--a 59-percent increase. Medicaid will rise at over 5 percent annually. And Social Security is totally untouched by the program between the present and the year 2002. Spending on the Social Security program is expected to increase by 43 percent, from $354 to $483.7 billion. Indeed, Mr. President, the plan we will consider allows spending in all of Government to grow by an average of 3 percent annually, increasing by over one-half trillion dollars over the next 7 years the overall spending of Government. In this debate over the future of our country, I am reminded of the philosopher's words: ``They sought to heal by incantations a cancer which requires the surgeon's knife.'' You cannot heal by just speaking words those things which require the surgeon's knife. The truth of the matter is that we are in a condition in this country where the scalpel of surgery needs to be applied to the cancer of national irresponsibility. We need to have the scalpel of the surgeon's knife cut out the unwanted and malignant growth which is taking over and depriving us of the ability to make good decisions regarding the future of this country. Mr. President, we are hearing all around us the familiar cries of the discredited and irresponsible philosophy. But we should not listen to the cries of those who do not have the will, do not have the dedication, do not have the commitment, who, while they said we did not need a balanced budget amendment, they now refuse to face up to the specific personal responsibility to operate with fiscal integrity. We were sent here by the American people with a demand and an expectation. They demand that we make the tough decisions, the same kind of decisions that are made around every kitchen table in America. When you sit down to figure out what you can and cannot afford, you set priorities to guard the vital interests of the family and you do away with those things that you can get by without. That is what the people sent us here to do. They demand that we stop business as usual in the U.S. Senate and that we embark upon something new and different for Government, and that is Government living within its means, Government that understands that there are limits. The people want the hand of Government out of their pockets. They do not want a Government handout. They expect us to listen and we ought to listen and we will listen. Well, our budget plan goes a long way. It goes all the way to balancing the budget on a controlled, understandable, doable, achievable plan by the year 2002. It is a plan that will not only benefit the people today, but it will benefit the children. It will provide for them the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labors, rather than just to try and retire a debt and pay interest for items that we have consumed. It is an opportunity for Members of this Congress, it is an opportunity for Members of the U.S. Senate; but more than an opportunity, it is a charge from the American public, and it is a responsibility we have to the generations to come. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Grams, from Minnesota.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I rise to honor a Missourian who has distinguished himself through his bravery beyond the call of duty and earned the National Association of Letter Carriers' Central Region Hero of the Year Award. Daniel S. Mohan is a letter carrier from St. Claire, MO, who took actions well beyond trudging through rain, sleet, snow, and dark of night to complete his appointed rounds. Daniel Mohan was driving on his postal route in St. Claire when he heard shots. Soon after, a woman ran screaming from her house and fell wounded on her driveway, the victim of three gunshot wounds, including one to the face. Mr. Mohan raced from his truck and pulled the victim to safety behind his postal vehicle located across the street as her assailant was coming out of the house in pursuit. Daniel's presence at the scene discouraged the gunman who returned to the house and surrendered to authorities soon after. The victim of the shooting was later treated at a local hospital's intensive care unit, and continues to undergo reconstructive surgery. But as Tom Yoder, Police Chief of Saint Claire acknowledged, this women would not be alive if not for the valiant efforts of Daniel Mohan. For his efforts, Daniel Mohan has been honored by the National Association of Letter Carriers as its Central Region Hero of the Year. In a time when we hear of events of violence going on in public view without a single person acting to stop egregious actions, Daniel Mohan's bravery and self-sacrifice is truly a model to be followed. Edmund Burke said, ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' Mr. President, it is my hope that the heroic actions of this Missourian would become the norm, not the exception when we speak of how we as Americans should act toward our neighbors.