John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to salute a Missourian who has distinguished herself for her bravery while in service to her country, Margaret Stanfill of Hayti, MO. As a nurse serving in the U.S. Army Nurses Corps during the Second World War, Margaret served her country with unprecedented bravery and dedication while participating in some of the greatest Allied successes of the war. Margaret Stanfill was documented as the first American nurse to arrive on the beaches of Normandy during the Allies' D-day invasion of France on June 6, 1944. The wire service accounts of the invasion reported that the first nurses to arrive by barge, ``waded ashore while battle-weary soldiers blinked in astonishment.'' The nurses, led by Margaret Stanfill and clothed in two layers of men's uniforms with steel helmets, went to work immediately setting up dressing stations in pup tents and ministering to the wounded. Many of the wounded were paratroopers injured as part of the initial assault. I rise today to salute Margaret's bravery and leadership, not only at Normandy, but throughout her life. Margaret Stanfill grew up in Hayti, in the bootheel of Southeastern Missouri near the Tennessee border, graduating from Hayti high school in 1938. While in high school Margaret was a 4-year member of the basketball team, serving 1 year as team captain. She was also a 4-year member of the Hayti high school tennis team and was county high school's girls singles champion. After graduation, Margaret entered nurses training at the Baptist Hospital in Memphis, TN, graduating from there in 1940. After a year in private nursing, Margaret felt the call of service end entered the U.S. Army Nurses Corps, training at Camp Tyson. Margaret arrived in England for additional training on August 1, 1942. By November of that year, she was among the first nurses to arrive on shore during the Allied invasion to liberate North Africa. The scenes of Margaret and her surgical operating unit being carried ashore from barges on the shoulders of their male colleagues appeared in news reels shown around the world. Her unit followed the Allied advance through North Africa into Sicily, where Margaret followed the infantry onto European soil at the invasion of Italy before returning to England for further training preceding the D-day Invasion. Margaret Stanfill returned from the war and married Wick P. Moore, an Army captain she served with during the North Africa campaign. They settled down in Texas and had three children, two sons and a daughter. I once again salute Margaret Stanfill Moore for her service and bravery in playing a role in some of the most crucial events in the history of our Nation and our world. Her love of freedom and willingness to give of herself and her talents for her country sets an example of service of which all of us can be proud.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that I can speak as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to address the issue of a balanced budget, but I want to start by talking about the shifting balance of Federal-State power. Last week, in United States versus Lopez, the Supreme Court held that a 1990 Federal statute did not ``substantially affect'' interstate commerce. While the decision did not overturn any precedents, it marked a sharp departure from the modern Court's expansive view of congressional power to regulate commerce. By limiting Congress' ability to use the commerce clause to legislate social policy, the Court highlighted the benefits of the Federal system envisioned by the Framers, and outlined in the Constitution. Moreover, they acknowledged what the American people have recognized for quite some time: That a Congress with the power to do everything for you, also has the power to take everything from you. In the Senate, we have just begun to discuss spending priorities for the coming fiscal year. When the budget resolution comes before this Chamber, our actions will help shape the ongoing debate over State power within the Federal system. The question we must ask is not what power the Federal Government ought to have, but what powers have been extended by the people. We must be ever mindful of the fact that the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution have proscribed limits. Clearly, a National Government that has a debt of $4.9 trillion--that is over $18,000 for every man, woman, and child--has forgotten this fact. Mr. President, if efforts are not made to limit spending, the Federal Government will no longer be able to fulfill its most basic constitutional obligations. In just 17 years, spending on entitlement and the national debt will consume all tax revenues; Medicare will be bankrupt in just 6 years; and in FY 1997, we will pay more in interest payments on the national debt than we will spend on national defense. Last November, the American people spoke with a clarity and an intensity seldom heard in American government. What was their message? Return to us the ability to control our own lives, our own future, our own destinies. This was not some radical, foreign concept, it was the message of the founding--the message embodied in the capstone of the Bill of Rights, the 10th amendment, which reads: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to to the people.'' I would posit, Mr. President, that this fundamental idea should animate all that we do here in the coming weeks. The task of defining the constitutional line between Federal and State power has given rise to many of the Court's most challenging and celebrated cases. In United States versus Lopez, the Court reaffirmed the belief that the powers of the Federal Government have proscribed limits. Now, it is the opportunity of this Congress to recreate the dual sovereignty that the Framers envisioned. For ``in the tension between Federal and State power lies the promise of liberty.'' Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to citizens all across America who are recognizing the observation of the National Day of Prayer. It is a time during which the people of America pray for this country and pray for those of us who have the responsibility to lead, not just at the national level, but at the local level as well. So in city halls across America, in State capitals, and here in the Nation's Capital, individuals are seeking to invoke the presence of God upon the deliberations of the Government, and upon the Nation as a whole. I am especially grateful for this fitting activity and for the fact that as a nation we occasionally stop to remember the Almighty. In particular, I am pleased to express appreciation on behalf of myself and many others to Shirley Dobson who is leading the National Day of Prayer this year. As our Nation heals from the wounds inflicted upon us by the Oklahoma City tragedy, and as we continue to confront daily the tragedies of death and violence that seem to plague our land, it is fitting we would call upon God to give thanks for the blessings we have enjoyed. The Old Testament book of Chronicles provides a worthwhile guide to our times. It says: ``If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.'' Mr. President, I do not think there is a more noble aspiration than the desire of America to be a land of healing. Our Nation has embodied this attitude of humility and reverence before God from the very earliest days of its existence. During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin rose to say: ``If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?'' There is little question but that we owe a debt of gratitude to Almighty God for the blessings he has continued to bestow upon us. As George Washington prayed: ``Almighty God; we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt * * * most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with * * * charity, humility and a pacific temper of mind.'' I believe those are the kinds of sentiments we all ought to be expressing today. I pray God's blessing upon this land, and I thank those who are assembling across the country to remember our need for guidance.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, the opportunities of this 104th Congress are substantial. They are substantial not only because every Congress has great opportunity, but they are substantial because we have a significant opportunity to change the direction in three decades. The elections of November 8 provided a new chemistry for the Congress and a new potential for a change in direction. It is a change in direction which the people of America sorely need and desperately want. It is a change brought about by the popular recognition that over the last three decades or so, the Government of the United States has not been advocating a set of values necessary for the success and survival of this society in the next generation. The Government has been validating irresponsibility through the Congress' conduct and Congress' programs since at least the midsixties, if not before. Most of us know that responsibility is the key to a successful survival for this society in this century and in the next. If we want to sink, we can continue on our current track. But if we want to swim and survive, we are going to have to change, and the opportunity of this Congress is to change the way that Washington does business. Let me just suggest a few ways in which Government has been validating irresponsibility. For the past several decades, the modus operandi of this Congress has been to spend more than it receives. This deficit problem which we have had year after year after year, which has been growing larger and larger and larger, has been a way that the Government has subtly, if not intentionally, been teaching irresponsibility. It is just that simple. When Government tells us what is legal and what is illegal, it begins teaching us, and when by its conduct it shows that it is not important to pay your debts, that you can simply pile up irresponsibly mountains of debt that the next generation will have to sustain, that is a way of teaching irresponsibility. It is a way of saying to this society that you do not have to be responsible. It displays before the entire Nation, before every man, woman, and child, a kind of conduct which is destined to failure over the long term, designed inevitably to fail and to sink. Similarly, for the last 30 years or so, Congress has been passing laws and then exempting itself from them. I cannot imagine a less noble thing for leadership to do than to enact laws which it says apply to everyone else but do not apply to leaders. We know that real leadership is to carry the burden forward first, to catch the vision of the noble first, to do what is right first; not to send someone else into battle first, not to push others into good behavior while we lag behind and languish in behavior which is unacceptable. The Congress has validated irresponsibility by saying the rest of the world has to have a level of responsibility and care but that we could exempt ourselves. Of course, the Congress was similarly irresponsible when it tried to run everyone else's business and not run its own. The unfunded mandates of the last three decades are another way that Government has validated irresponsibility in the culture. Congress said to the people of America that we are not going to be responsible and it is not important to be responsible because, rather than take care of our own business responsibly, we are going to try with mandates to tell State and local governments how to do their business. We will even try to tell business how to conduct their business, but we will not do our own business that way. We will exempt the Federal operations from many of the regulatory impacts to the society, and we will direct the spending of State and local governments in spite of the fact that their view of the circumstances and understanding of the challenges is far superior to our own. This character of conduct by the Government over the last three decades has literally validated irresponsibility in the society, and it is no wonder that the news magazines of late have headlined things like shame, or the absence of shame, in society, the absence of responsibility, the absence of the internal guideposts to good behavior. When the biggest, perhaps, teacher of all in America, the Government, has by its own behavior been teaching irresponsibility over the last three decades, we have really hurt this culture. We have validated irresponsibility, not, however, just in the way we conduct our own affairs. Government has been validating irresponsibility in the kind of programs it promulgates. Look at the welfare system. We have not said to this society, on welfare, that you will have to be good, that you will have to be moving in the right direction in order to have our assistance. We have not said that you will have to stop illegitimacy or that you will have to start to work or that you will have to be industrious. No, we have not. We have just said that no matter how irresponsible you are, we will continue to write the check and to pay the bills. Or in the criminal law area we have not really been a society of responsibility. We have been confused about who the victim was and who the criminal was. We have said that the guy pulling the trigger was really the victim, that society had not treated him well and he was probably excused for pulling the trigger. The person who took the bullet probably was encouraged to say: ``I should not have been walking in this neighborhood at this time. After all, I probably invited the crime or the assault.'' The truth of the matter is that is the height of irresponsibility. Our criminal law system, our programs, have not been oriented toward responsibility. They have validated irresponsibility. Our program for welfare has not been an encouragement for responsibility but has validated irresponsibility. For three decades we have been looking at this validation of irresponsibility, and now we come to 1995, to the 104th Congress, and our chance is to change from a culture of irresponsibility to a culture which demands responsibility. That is what the first 100 days were about, that is what the next 100 days are about. And that is why we need to move forward with an agenda for the American people to reinvest our society with governmental leadership that points toward responsibility. Let me just suggest how fundamental those changes are. Instead of spending beyond our means, instead of spending without regard to who will pay, we are going to start producing balanced budgets; instead of validating the irresponsibility of not paying our debts, we are going to demand a culture of responsible behavior by paying for what we consume; instead of saying that there is a set of laws for the Congress and then a bigger and broader set of laws for the citizenry, we are going to say, no, we want to be responsible. With the Congressional Accountability Act, the first thing we did was to pass laws that said we would live under the same laws under which the citizens of America live. That pushes us toward a culture of responsibility. Instead of telling other governmental entities and jurisdictions how to consume their resources and deploy them with unfunded mandates, we have said we will stop doing that; we will start acting responsibly. The real challenge for us is to move from a culture of irresponsibility to a culture of responsibility and for Government to take the lead. Look at what is happening in the welfare area, and this is why it desperately needs reform. Instead of saying to people, no matter how irresponsible you are, we will promote that and validate it and as a matter of fact we will fund it--instead of doing that, we are going to say, no, you have to behave in certain ways; you have to improve your performance; you have to work; you have to treat your children with dignity and give them a chance to break the cycle of dependency and poverty. That is responsibility, and we are moving in that direction. I submit to you that in the area of the criminal law, we will have a move toward responsibility. We will deny the culture of irresponsibility, and we will demand the culture of responsibility. And that is what Government should do. It should set an example. It should teach with its conduct and with the programs that it promulgates. It should promote responsibility. And that is why the first 100 days were important, 100 days that began this session, and that is why the rest of this session is of monumental importance. It is very important that we carry through on this change from validating irresponsibility, which is the past, to promoting responsibility and demanding accountability, which is the future. We must move forward with a real balanced budget to respond to the demand of the people that we institute a culture, at least a governmental culture of responsibility that will set an example for this society. We must move forward on the reforms which are before us. We cannot stop now. We must continue to address the agenda of the American people. This is the great opportunity of this Congress, that we change the way Washington does business. And by changing the way Washington does business, we signal to America that there is a new demand for accountability and responsibility in this society: We no longer spend money we do not have; we no longer fail to live under the laws which we pass; we no longer try to direct the activities of other governmental entities. No, our conduct will be responsible instead of irresponsible--pay our debts, live under the laws we pass. Yes, we will stop telling governments much better prepared to make decisions than we are how those decisions ought to be made. All of those things are included in the monumental changes sweeping through the Congress. But the sweeping through is not complete. Sweeping through is a process, and it is a process which we must continue, which we must extend, which we must, as a matter of fact, complete. We must have the discipline and the determination to carry through on these programs. We are in the midst of a debate on the question of product liability. The question is whether companies will be held responsible for things they really had nothing to do with, whether rental car companies that had nothing but ownership of a car which was stolen or otherwise wrongfully taken will be held accountable for millions of dollars of damage done with the car. We have a tremendous energy that is pent up, a momentum in the culture of irresponsibility, and it is not easy for us to stop the spending, to stop the conduct which has promoted and validated irresponsibility for the last several decades. It is something on which we have made a great start and from which we should not turn. It is a task which we must continue. So as we review, looking back, the significant achievements of the first 100 days, let us never forsake the potentials of the next 100 days. I think we have reached a threshold, a tipping point. We have reached an opportunity to continue to institute as a regular means of operation this culture of responsibility in Government. Let us make sure that in these next 100 days we do not turn back; that we continue to move forward on the agenda of the American people. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to allocate 15 minutes of time from Senator Thomas of Wyoming, with whom I agreed that I should spend the time in his stead this morning.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, we have a solemn responsibility the people have given us. It is a responsibility to control the spending of this Government, to bring it in line with the concept of balance, to somehow manage the resources of this Government in a way which would not continue to jeopardize future generations. You and I are keenly aware of the fact that every man, woman, and child in the United States of America has a debt of about $18,000, every family of four a debt of about $72,000. We have before us a rescission bill, this measure to try and rescind certain spending items which we think we can afford not to spend--as a matter of fact, we cannot afford to spend. These are items which ought to be cut. The freshman class of the Senate in this body in the last several days has forwarded additional cuts that would proposal for rescissions in the Senate was about $13.3 billion, and this Senate just a few evenings ago in an act of rather courageous judgment decided that we would defer an additional $1.8 billion in spending by deferring the construction of a number of courthouses around the country. I think it is important for us to look carefully at the proposal of the freshmen Senators that would provide for another $1.3 billion in spending reductions. That money would be available for future generations because it would not be an encumbrance of debt placed upon them. And the kinds of places in which there are projected cuts are places where we can afford to trim back spending, not the least of them is the AmeriCorps of President Clinton, the so-called volunteer arena where people are paid significant sums of money in order to go and volunteer. What is interesting about AmeriCorps is that it has been costing the American citizens an average of $30,400 per volunteer. Now, most people do not think of $30,400 price tags on volunteers. We think of volunteers as a part of a great American tradition of giving. This is part of the great American governmental tradition of spending. Not only is it $30,400, a lot of that just goes into the bureaucracy to support those so-called volunteers. As a matter of fact, the data we have indicates that $15,000 of each one of those $30,400 items goes into the bureaucracy and overhead and administrative costs to support the volunteers. That only leaves $15,400 remaining. So that money then supports the so-called volunteer. But it is interesting to know where the volunteers work. The volunteers, 20 percent of them, one out of every five of them, works for the Government. And frequently these individuals are not really volunteering in the traditional area of volunteer service in America at all. It is just a back-door way of bringing more people into the bureaucracy. So the AmeriCorps Program is a program that ought to be carefully looked at. And when the freshman class proposed, in response to the mandate of the American people, that we cut an additional $206 million from the AmeriCorps Program, it was a worthy thing to consider. Now there are those who have come to say to us, ``Well, volunteering is noble; volunteering is wonderful.'' It is noble and it is wonderful, but it is very expensive if you accept the administration's definition of a volunteer. Here you have volunteers in the State of Alaska averaging over $40,000 apiece in terms of cost. I know there are a lot of folks in my home State that would consider that kind of volunteering a great opportunity. So, I would just say that when we have come forward with the potential of cutting $206 million from the AmeriCorps Program, I think we have come forward with a reasonable way to say that we ought to restrain spending, to rescind this appropriation so that we do not unduly jeopardize future generations with debt. Another important area they are recommending and we are recommending for rescission is the area of foreign operations, in the area of our generosity to countries overseas. The original recommendation of the Senate was that we would have a foreign operations cut of $100 million. That represents about an eight-tenths of 1 percent cut. The House had recommended $191 million. If we were to move from the eight-tenths of 1 percent, or $100 million, figure to the $191 million figure, we would only be moving to about a total of 1.4 percent cut in the so-called foreign operations budget. Now, this foreign aid that we give to other countries can be important, can be in the national interest. But let us not suggest to the entire world that the American people are the only people that are going to have to act responsibly in the area of restraining spending. Other countries around the globe are going to have to participate with us, as we tighten our belt in order to reach a balanced budget, in order to have the kind of fiscal restraint and financial responsibility that our children are demanding of us. As a matter of fact, not just our children and their yet unearned wages, but the people across America are demanding of us. Incidentally, I think countries around the world are demanding that we act responsibly. If you will look at what has been happening to the American dollar on world monetary markets recently, we have been in a free fall. We ought not to have the picture of George Washington on the American dollar. We ought to have a parachute, if we are going to continue to see its value plummet. Why does the American dollar plummet on world markets? I think it is a lack of confidence in the discipline of this Government to restrain its spending. And we ought to be restraining spending. So if we do restrain spending and if we are in a position to restrain spending in such a way as to protect the future of America and stabilize the world economy, our restraint of spending the additional $91.6 million in foreign operations will be a great benefit not only to us in balancing the budget, but of great benefit to the world because we will have helped create an environment of financial stability. Well, there are a whole range of things that are a part of this proposed rescission bill. It includes everything from public broadcasting, to the foreign operations, to the AmeriCorps, to the Legal Services Corporation, a variety of items, all of which at one time or another, or some of which even today are laudable things, but things we simply cannot afford. Mr. President, I believe the American people expect us to live within our resources. The question is not, Is it something you want? The question is, Is it something that we should be spending for, especially in light of the fact that we do not currently have the resources? When you and I sit down at our kitchen table to develop the budgets that we must have with our family, we ask more than the question: Is this a good thing or is it a bad thing? We have a list of good things that we might like that would be a mile long. We look at the catalog, whether it be from Sears or Lands End, or wherever it was that we are looking at. There are all kinds of good things there. The question is not whether they are good things. It is whether or not they are a priority for us, whether or not we really have the wherewithal to engage in this kind of activity. Now those who have come to attack the committee's proposed reductions have suggested that we are cutting children; that we are somehow injuring young people. They have elevated horror stories. They have elevated very sad scenarios, suggesting that we are heartless and compassionless. This has been done irresponsibly, in my judgment, because, as a matter of fact, we are responsibly addressing these problems. One of the things that was projected for reduction and rescission was the WIC Program, Women, Infants, and Children. It is a nutrition program. There was a modest reduction there, I think, of $35 million. There is a great outcry as a result of that modest reduction, saying that this was heartless, it was compassionless, it was going to be taking food from the mouths of women, infants, and children, and it was going to be destructive of the future because people would have lower levels of nutrition. The truth of the matter is this money was to be rescinded from an unallocated, undistributed surplus in the Women, Infants, and Children Program. The surplus was about $150 million. And to reduce the surplus by $35 million, from $150 million to $115 million, would not impair the nutrition, not impair the health, not impair the safety, not impair the standing of any of these individuals. But it is important for us to impair the deficit. And we need to look carefully at the way we are managing resources, even resources that are devoted to things of relatively high priorities, even resources that are devoted to things like health and the like. If they are not being utilized, if they are in unallocated and undistributed surplus accounts, let us make sure that we do not leave that resource there or otherwise fail to rescind it so that we occasion additional spending somewhere else. We have come in response to the voice of the people last November. As one of the newly elected Senators, I know my colleagues and I, when we came to add our voices to the voices we knew we were doing that representing the American people. We were doing that because the people are demanding responsibility in Government. They were demanding reasonable, but tough decisions. They were demanding we restrain the growth of Government. They were demanding that we limit the kind of jeopardy into which our children will go because the debt is higher and higher and higher. We are not talking about an environment where the debt is going down and down and down. The President has proposed debts of $200 billion a year as far as he is forecasting. As a matter of fact, the data from which he is creating the forecasts is data that is now coming out of OMB. A year ago, it was represented that we would be using data from the Congressional Budget Office, but that data is not nearly as favorable to the President as the OMB data is. The OMB data suggests the deficit would only be about $200 billion-- only about $200 billion--next year and the year after and the year after and the year after and the year after. But the Congressional Budget Office data indicates that the deficit is substantially greater, hundreds of millions of dollars greater in the outyears than the President's forecasts have indicated. So we are not talking about a circumstance or situation where it does not matter whether we are cutting, it does not matter whether we are rescinding. It does matter. It matters not only to taxpayers today, but it matters to the young people of tomorrow. An ordinary family, the father, the mother, no matter how deeply they go into debt, they simply cannot provide or mandate that the youngsters will some day have to grow up and pay that debt. There is a rule against that in America, you cannot be held responsible for the debt of another. No matter how reckless I might be, I cannot create debts my children would have to pay off. However, there is an exception to the rule. The Congress can incur debt that the next generation will have to pay off, and we have been incurring that debt at an incredible rate. Now each family of four faces a debt of $72,000, and it is growing and growing and growing. We have the opportunity in this body to say we will stop some of the spending, we will stop the hemorrhaging where we can, we are going to restrain this outflow, and it is time for us to restrain the outflow. We will restrain it in terms of the AmeriCorps Program, yes, the so- called volunteer program that costs $30,000 per volunteer. We will restrain it in the area of foreign operations and foreign aid. Yes, if we are going to have some belt tightening in this country, other countries around the world should share in that belt tightening as well. We will restrain it even for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is an institution of great wealth, but is an institution which ignores that great wealth and continues to draw upon taxpayers' resources and which ought to be able to use that wealth to avoid having to draw on taxpayers' resources. We need to make sure that we even implement the rescission cuts which the President of the United States has asked us to implement. When we first started this debate on rescissions, we were going to ignore over $300 million of cuts that the President asked us to make. It is time for us to knock those earmarked special projects out. Those are the projects which the President next year, under a line-item veto, will have the authority to knock out. He said this year that he would like for us to knock those out, and I think we ought to accommodate the President in that respect and knock out that kind of spending. If we do, we will be responding constructively to the mandate of the people. If we do, we will be responding constructively to what they have asked us to do in the election last year. I believe that is very important. They have asked us to be responsible in restraining spending. The Senate has an opportunity, as a result of the report of the committee and the amendment offered by the freshmen Members of the U.S. Senate, to rescind the expenditure of resources, the expenditure of which will drive us deeper and deeper into debt. Mr. President, it is time for us to accept the challenge of the American people to respond constructively to rescind unnecessary spending and to devote the proceeds of the rescissions to the reduction of the Federal deficit. That is the mandate of the people. It is the opportunity which we have. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I object.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of the remaining 20 minutes of the majority time to the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of the time allotted to the majority leader's amendment to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to commend the senior Senator from Missouri for an outstanding presentation. The juxtaposition of the funded agencies and the volunteer agencies is a stark and compelling contrast. To think that the Future Farmers of America applied and were turned down when the Department of Agriculture was funded; to think that the 4-H Council applied and was turned down while the Department of Energy was funded; to think that the Departments of Interior, Justice, and Labor were successful applicants when no ``volunteers'' were provided to the Girl Scouts or the American Red Cross. In my mind, and I think my good friend would agree, this reflects very poorly on the character and quality of the AmeriCorp Program. Mr. President, we are not talking about rescinding Federal money in a vacuum. I believe this entire debate must be placed in the context of America's financial condition. The American people are alarmed at a $4.8 trillion debt. Last November, they said ``It is time to stop this out of control spending, and put our fiscal house in order.'' In family budgeting, what father or mother would say, ``Even though we are $72,000 in debt, business as usual will suffice.'' Despite our massive debt and rising deficits, Bill Clinton has suggested just that. The President has projected $200-billion-a-year deficits for as far as the eye can see. Mr. President, this type of unrestrained spending must stop. So, I rise today in support of the majority leader's amendment. If enacted, this package would significantly decrease discretionary spending for this fiscal year. More importantly, it would achieve that end by attacking non-essential government services. AmeriCorp, which I discussed earlier, is a perfect example. This so-called volunteer program, which costs $30,400 per participant per year, is not a volunteer program at all. It is a way of paying individuals to do things that people already do. Mr. President, out of the $30,000 used to support each volunteer in this program, $15,000 goes to administration and overhead costs. That means that this is really just a program to support the Federal bureaucracy. Then, when you think of the rest of the money--the $15,400 that is left over for the volunteer after you have paid the $15,000 for overhead and costs--you have to understand that 20 percent of all of those volunteers are working in the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, or the National Endowment for the Arts. AmeriCorps. It sounds like you ought to stand up and salute. The truth is that the American people ought to stand up and grab their wallets because it represents a raid on their resources. And not just the American people, but also the yet unearned wages of generations to come. Mr. President, we hear over and over again from the Democrat party that we have to save the children. Well, let us save them from bankruptcy. Let us practice a little responsibility. The goodbye to Big Bird,'' as if we were to curtail funding for public broadcasting there wouldn't be any worthwhile children's programming. This is nonsense and the American people know it. In fact, a recent Lou Harris poll found that public broadcasting is third on a list of Federal programs that should be abolished. Only $7.5 million of the $300 million spent on PBS goes directly to children's programming. Where does the money go? It goes to purchase and develop programming for wealthy adults. According to one of its own member stations, WMET, ``one out of eight contributors to PBS is a millionaire. One out of seven has a wine cellar, and one out of every three has spent time in Europe in the last three years.'' This is not a social welfare program, it is welfare for the rich. Mr. President, these are the types of people taking advantage of PBS, and taking advantage of the American taxpayer. As my friend Senator Pressler noted, the wealthy donors to public broadcasting could easily make up the 14 percent of Federal funding that CPB receives if they simply gave an additional $55 a year. Mr. President, I believe we also need to look carefully at the foreign operations budget. The House suggested rescinding $191.6 million. The Senate cut only $100 million. Well, I think we ought to be rescinding what the House proposed. The additional $91.6 million would bring our total Federal foreign operations reduction to 1.4 percent. If we are serious about balancing the budget, and if we really care about kids, we must at the very minimum do that. So, we have an opportunity to say to the American people that we heard the message of November 8. We understand that it is important for us to make serious cuts. The Senate has a $13 billion rescission package. The House was at $17 billion. Thus, we can add the $1.3 billion in this amendment and still not make it to the House level. Mr. President, during the debate on the balanced budget amendment, member after member who opposed the bill talked about making tough choices. Furthermore, they all indicated that they were ready to move toward a balanced budget. Let me suggest that now is the time to begin. It is time because that is what the American people sent us here to do. Unfortunately, the President continues to takes us down a different road, a road of increased deficits and debt. Let this Chamber be different. Let this Chamber fundamentally alter the way Washington works. We should rescind the funds which were proposed by the committee and add to it what the majority leader has suggested. If we do, we will begin to demonstrate responsibility, and that brings me to my last point. I think what Government does is teaches. We all talk about the value of education. The most important lesson we can learn is the lesson of responsibility. Are we or are we not people who pay our bills? Do we live with the consequences of the decisions we make? Are we willing to accept responsibility for what we do? If our citizens make that kind of commitment, the coming era can once again be called the American century. Regrettably, as a Government, we have yet to make that commitment. Some of us are concerned that as citizens we have not made that kind of commitment either. Maybe our Government is not teaching responsibility the way it ought to. Maybe our example speaks so loudly to young people that they believe they are not responsible for the actions that they take. After all, when we continue to appropriate and spend, when we continue to obfuscate and mislabel, government fails in its obligation to the citizenry. Mr. President, let us instruct the young people of this Nation properly. Let us show them that we have the willingness to exercise the discipline necessary to succeed in balancing the budget. In my mind, this means not only having a rescission bill, but also supporting the majority leader's amendment. It is my sincere hope that the Senate will do just that. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the majority leader. This amendment is critically important, and serves as a continuing demonstration of our willingness to curtail expenditures which we cannot afford. Much has been said today about the children of America, but the best way to ensure their future is to make sure that we are fiscally responsible. It is important to make the hard choices for the right reasons. That, Mr. President, is the number one investment that we can make in the children of America. Last night, late at night, this House made a mature and difficult decision about a substantial number of courthouses across the country that we simply could not afford. Mr. President, $1.4 billion was cut, and in the process, a commitment to the next generation was kept. I rise today, Mr. President, in support of a particular aspect of the majority leader's amendment. Specifically, an additional $91.6 million from the foreign operations budget. I think when we are talking about the children of America, and the future of this country, we all understand that there is going to have to be some sacrifice made on their behalf. To take 1.4 percent out of the foreign aid budget is not asking for too much. It is simply saying that when we are considering sacrifice, when we are considering restraint, people around the world will need to share in that sacrifice. Some might ask, ``Is this not isolationist?'' I hardly think a 1.4- percent rescission makes an isolationist out of the United States of America. It simply does not, it will not, and it should not. And to argue as such is to fundamentally mislead the American people. The point is we are going to have to ask our allies abroad to share in the kind of restraint needed to move toward a balanced budget. But of equal importance, Mr. President, I would argue that it may be that the best kind of foreign aid we could ever provide to countries overseas is the kind of benefit they would receive from a stable, fiscally sound U.S. economy. Mr. President, we are looking at a major restructuring of the way in which we deal with foreign entities. As part of that, it is important that we begin to send a signal, to friend and foe alike, that we are moving to put our fiscal house in order. It is important to note that all of the funds that were recommended to be rescinded in the House were unobligated funds. The Senate number was $100 million, theirs was $191.6 million. Now, if the House could make those reductions without really impairing priority programs, I think we ought to match their efforts. We are talking about an additional .0067 multiplier, which would provide the additional $91.6 million. Mr. President, we have spent almost half a trillion dollars over the last 45 years to increase peace and prosperity abroad. Unfortunately, in many cases, there is very little to show for our efforts. We need to think carefully about how we deploy resources and what a strong America, economically, means to the rest of the world. I cannot remember anyone cornering me in a coffee shop in Camdenton, MO, and saying, ``You have to support more funding for U.S. peacekeeping,'' or ``To be sure I am firmly on board when the next AID package comes before the Senate.'' It is time we start to look at our foreign aid budget and begin allocating funds only in those areas in which America has vital national interests at stake. The American people are a generous people, but they want a return on their investment. Mr. President, when we talk about fiscal belt-tightening and the responsibility associated with it, a minimal reduction in foreign aid must be part of that mix. The House bill cuts foreign aid accounts by nearly $200 million. Our bill only has $100 million. The addition of the $91.6 million would, again, move us in the right direction. As I mentioned earlier, last evening we started. We started a constructive effort by cutting $1.4 billion in an essential function of Government. The judicial process is one of the most fundamental components of American government. Courthouses are important. But our children and the next generation of Americans are also important. Mr. President, we cannot afford to spend what we do not have. This package represents a small, reasonable step in the right direction. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, on occasion after occasion, you and I have heard it said that under the dark of night, in the late hours of evening or the early hours of the morning, this body does things that are a discredit to a democratic society--pay raises, pork-barrel projects, and profligate spending. The kind of things that we would not want to have brought to the light of day. But late last night, something very befiting of this body took place. And, Mr. President, it did so at your hand and at the hand of your colleague, Senator McCain of Arizona. Because under your leadership, late last night, the U.S. Senate passed the line-item veto. And in so doing, we placed a tool in the hands of Presidents which will allow us to move toward the aspiration of a balanced budget. In the cover of darkness, we uncovered the darkest parts of our behavior, and said no more. We put the national interest ahead of the special interests. We said that in the future, if you want to put projects in an appropriations bill, you will have to contend with the possibility of a veto by the President of the United States. So I rise today, Mr. President, to draw attention to the importance of the action taken late last night to change the culture and structure of spending here in Washington. Forty-three of the 50 States have some variant of the line-item veto. During the debate, however, we heard people talk hypothetically about potential abuses. It is important to note that, of the 43 States, there has not repeal the line-item veto authority. In fact, it works so well that there is a consensus in the States that it should be left in place so that they might continue to provide a foundation for the financial integrity of the Nation. Someone came to me recently and said, ``John, there is a State that has changed their line-item veto. In 1990, the State of Wisconsin amended their provision.'' Well, it was interesting when I looked at what the amendment really said. It reads, and I quote: ``in approving an appropriations bill in part, the Governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in a word of the enrolled bill.'' Mr. President, what the legislature said was that the Governor could not change the word ``cannot'' into ``can'' by striking out the last three letters of the word. That is not a real change in the philosophy behind the veto authority. It is simply a housekeeping detail about making the measure what it ought to be, namely, the capacity of the executive to knock those things out of spending bills which are not in the best interest of the State. So, it is important as we go to conference to understand the success that the line-item veto has enjoyed in the States. In the end, I was encouraged by the vote last night. Sixty-nine votes in favor of the line-item veto reflected a strong understanding that we must adopt measures to restrain spending, and reduce the deficit. So we have made a significant step forward. For if the people sent us here for any purpose at all, it was to enact changes, such as this, that will fundamentally alter the way we do business. I look forward to the time when the conference report comes back and we again have an opportunity to address this issue. It is critically important. The vote last night was encouraging. However, while the battle has been won, the war is not over. And as we work out the differences between the two bills, I hope that the end product gives us as great a promise for financial integrity as the measure we passed last night. Mr. President, as the Senator from Indiana, you are to be commended for your role, along with Senator McCain. It was your hard work that ensured we arrived at a product which could be subscribed to by such a broad majority of the Senate. I hope that this body acts on the conference report as it did last night. It was nighttime behavior, maybe somewhat reminiscent of times when we have done the wrong thing under the cover of darkness. Last night's behavior, however, was commendable in that it was in the national interest. We should seek to replicate it in the future. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the tree of liberty is nourished by elections, which water and grow the process of good government. Last November, we got a real shower. The people of the United States of America said that they wanted us to change the way we do business in Washington, DC. They wanted us to live by the laws that we established for others, and so we provide for congressional accountability. They wanted us to stop telling State governments and city councils how to spend their money. Soon, S. 1 will be signed into law by the President. But there is another very important aspect of what the people told us. They said they wanted us to live within our means, like every household must live within its means. Last month, we failed to pass the balanced budget amendment. It was a tragedy, but that was the loss of a battle, not the war. Now, the American people are waiting--and the world community is waiting--to see whether or not we, as a government, will live within our means, as well as embrace the kind of tools which will allow us to get the job done. Every kitchen table in America has a line-item veto, Mr. President. We sit down with the resources we have and we look at the list of things we would like to buy, and we scratch off the things we can't afford. That is the line-item veto. It is that simple. It means nothing more than saying that we will not spend money we do not have, and we will mark through things which we cannot afford. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress has never seen it that way. We send the President a great big wish list and indicate that he has to either throw away the entire list or else sign it into law. Ridiculous. Few Americans would approach the kitchen table and say, ``If we can't have the frills, we don't want the food.'' We all know that there are things, both good and bad, that we can't always afford. So it is important for us to respond to the voters' desire to change the way Washington works. The American people have spoken. They have spoken clearly. It is time now for us to act. Now, there are a variety of voices being raised against the line-item veto. While these voices are loud, they are also misleading. They have been saying that if we have the line-item veto or the balanced budget amendment, we will hurt Social Security. Mr. President, the biggest threat to Social Security is a Nation which does not have the fiscal and financial integrity to address and deal with its national debt. When we force the President to have an all-or-nothing approach to the budgets we forward, we increase the likelihood of fiscal mismanagement. This has several negative effects. First, it increases the interest that we pay to service the debt. A 1-percent rise in interest rates on the national debt costs us $35 billion a year. Second, it decreases confidence in the dollar. We saw what happened when we failed to pass the balanced budget amendment. When people are insecure about America's economy and about our fiscal discipline, they are less likely to finance our debt. In the end, it is our inability to meet these fiscal obligations that is the single greatest threat to Social Security. Another argument against the line-item veto, Mr. President, is that it would impair the rights of children; that somehow, if we have fiscal integrity and financial management, we will hurt our children. The truth of the matter is that we are spending the yet unearned wages of the next generation today. We are destroying their future. that they will ultimately lead. We are mortgaging their future, and it is wrong. We need a strong country that will provide a foundation and framework in which those children can be prosperous. The line-item veto would help do just that. Mr. President, others have argued that we are eroding the Constitution. I, however, would argue that the Constitution came into existence as a protest against the improper taxation of Americans without representation. If we do not control spending, we are taxing the next generation. If we have a balanced budget and if we move toward it with a line-item veto, we are acting in a way that is entirely consistent with the actions and the intent of the Framers. This is the U.S. Senate. It is not a packing house. This debate is not about the Constitution, it is a debate about whether we are a packing house, or a place of public policy. So, we must recognize the voice of the people in their call for change. We must provide the President an opportunity to knock out inappropriate spending without vetoing an entire bill. We must protect Social Security with financial integrity. We must protect our children by not mortgaging their future. We must protect the idea of the Constitution by not taxing the next generation without representation. We must eliminate pork. We must, in the end, serve all the people. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to have an opportunity to speak today on behalf of the line-item veto. As I have said many times over the course of the last several months, a balanced budget is an aspiration or a goal. It is like saying that we intend to live within our means. The question then becomes how do we move from an aspiration to the actual achievement of our goal? One of the ways is to have the right tools. The line-item veto is just that. I was very interested in the comments offered by the Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, earlier in the day. He was talking about special interests and their impact on the appropriations process. Often, a number of special projects are inserted to benefit specific districts or States. Then, when either the Senate or the President acts on the bill, there is no real opportunity to knock these things out because they are voted on as a group. As a result, we end up spending a lot of money that we would not spend if each of these items were to be held up individually to the light of day. I think this is a critically important point. We should understand that there is a difference between the national interest and the special interest; for example, it could be in the interest of an individual State to get several transportation projects from the Federal Government. However, this allocation of funds, while in the interest of the State, might not to be in the best interest of the Nation. All too frequently, Members who are elected to represent the State interest or the interest of a specific district are willing to participate in putting these projects into legislation. Consequently, it is important to look at one person alone who is endowed with the ability to protect the national interest, the President of the United States. He is the only individual who is elected by citizens from every State and territory in the Republic. So it is appropriate, then, that the President be given the tool with which to protect the national interest. I think the President needs that tool. Every President this century, with the exception of one, has asked for it. They have asked for it even in times when we were not facing the overwhelming deficits we are facing now. If it is not good for America, in the long run, it cannot be good for our States. I think people all across America have finally decided they do not want any more special favors for their locality if it means that the United States as a whole will suffer. It is kind of like racing home to a different room in a big house and putting more and more rich goods and furniture into the room and not attending to the maintenance of the entire house. I think we have come to the conclusion that if we do not protect the structural integrity of our house, it will not matter how many benefits we drag home to our room. For if the house falls down, those things which we think we are enjoying will be of little value. Incidentally, the figures on the debt continue to rise. The end of the debate over the balanced budget did not end the increase in the debt of the United States. Every 4 days we increase the debt as much as we did in the entire year of 1958. That is how headlong we are racing into debt--$4,815,827,000,000 of debt, and we are moving, according to the President's projected budgets over the next couple years, to a $6- trillion-dollar-plus debt by the year 2000. One of the things that was of interest to me in the last several weeks was the way in which the world markets responded to our failure to pass the balanced budget amendment. There was a crisis in confidence about the value of the dollar, and no matter to whom you talked, no matter which economist you interviewed, they all indicated there was a substantial impact of a loss of confidence that flowed from the failure of the U.S. Senate to pass the balanced budget amendment. One of the ways the world markets reflect disenchantment is to devalue our currency. They just will not pay as much for a dollar as they once did. Another way is that those who finance U.S. debt will be less likely to hold it. What happens if the interest rate on our debt goes up? If interest rates go up by one-one hundredth of 1 percent--this is known as a basis point in the financial industry--that is $350 million a year. If interest rates go up by 1 percent it will cost the United States of America $35 billion in additional interest. So what we do here does make a difference. It makes a substantial difference. It is time for us to enact the line-item veto so that we can put a tool in the hand of the President of the United States to help him manage, in the national interest, the expenditure of the resources that the people of this great country provide as a basis for our conduct of government. Some people try to estimate how much the President would be able to cut out of the budget. I believe almost all of the estimates about how much the President would cut underestimate the real impact of the line- item veto. Because many of the projects which have been tucked away in appropriations bills are so embarrassing and self-serving, I do not believe any Senator would ever want to add them in the first place if they thought they would come back for individual inspection. So, as a result, I believe there would be a tremendous chilling effect on spending. President Truman, who hailed from my home State of Missouri--and, of course, I hailed from his home State--said that there was a great deal of legislative blackmail that went on in bills that needed to be signed. That is part of this culture of spending which is, in my judgment, a detriment to this country. It is not good for America. It is not good for our individual jurisdictions, and we must reject it. I have said in the past, and I would like to say again, that the people of this country all operate with the line-item veto. Every kitchen table in America has one. You sit down at the kitchen table, and you put your budget together. You talk with the family about what you can afford and what you cannot afford. The average family that sits down at the kitchen table engages in what I call kitchen table budgeting, and they do so in a way which provides balance, as well as a set of spending priorities. I preformed this same function not only as the head of my household, but also as Governor of the State of Missouri. I can remember in every year having to knock out some expenditures, one year for staff expenses at the public defender's office. We wanted to have the defense that was appropriate in our public defender's operations, but we had to cut a couple hundred thousand dollars there. We simply had to draw the line through the increase. I remember one year when some folks who were powerful politically wanted to have $15,000--just $15,000--to restore and repair a cemetery. It was not a public cemetery. It was not a State cemetery. It was not on State land. They thought they just might be able to talk their way through the legislature with it, and, sure enough, they did. But as a Governor I had the opportunity to draw a line through it and to send it back. There were other worthy things that had to be eliminated or reduced. The lawyers of the State were building a new law school when I was Governor, and I had a rule that I expected the institutions to come up with 20 percent of the funds for capital projects. I thought, if we were helping people with their education, some of these well-to- school. They got through the general assembly a full appropriation so that they would not, these lawyers, these poor lawyers who were strapped for funds, have to provide 20 percent of the funding. But I had to draw a line through those extra funds and knock it back to 80 percent. In the end, they came up with the resources, and we have a great new facility at one of the finest law schools in the country. The reason we did, though, is that we have the kind of financial integrity that would protect us in the long run. The Governor of the State has the responsibility to keep spending in line. Mr. President, 43 Governors do. I did not do anything special as Governor of the State of Missouri. It is common for Governors to do that. And just as Governors do it, we do it around our kitchen tables. I have put together a chart here representing a budget for a normal family of four, a family that earns about $35,000 a year, monthly income of $2,900. The first thing you have to pay is your Federal income taxes. And if you take this $670 and you subtract it from the $2,990, you get down to $2,320 for the month. You move down to food, subtract it, and you have $1,870. Then, you need to make your car payment. You subtract the $300 from the $1,870, and you come to $1,570. You have a Super Nintendo that the kids are screaming for. That is another $100. That would take you to $1,470. And clothing of 200 bucks to get the kids ready for summer. That takes you from $1,470 to $1,270. Utilities are a must. That is $150 from $1,270 to $1,120. And then Freddy needs braces, and that is $150 a month, which takes you from $1,120 to $970; eliminating the trip to Disney World takes you to $820. And rent--you do not want to fail to pay the rent--$210. Car and property insurance, another $110. Wait a second. I see I have run out of money before I have reached the end of my list. When you run out of money before you get to the end of your list, what you have to do is start to set priorities. You have to have a line-item veto or you go into debt. What are we going to do? Are we going to pay the interest on the credit card? We better. Are we going to continue to have a telephone? Well, that is probably a necessity in today's society. How do you handle it, when you come down here and you are only a third or two-thirds of the way through the list and you run out of money? Simply put, you make some adjustments in what you spend. You implement what I call the line-item veto. This is the way we handle it at our house. You know, we are $320 short here at the end of the chart. We are going to have to make that up. If we knock out cable TV at $40 that will move us closer to our goal. Unfortunately, we're not quite there. Perhaps you could knock out this trip to Disney World; that would save you $150 a month over the twelve months in which you would save for the trip. Suddenly, we are $190. We still, however, need $130 more. Wait a second, Super Nintendo, you could remove that from the list of expenditures. Now you are at $290. You still need another $30. You could eliminate the swimming lessons at $30. That would get you to $0. Or, alternatively, you could reduce your general entertainment funding from $100 down to $70, score the swimming lessons as a form of entertainment, and still get to $0. Mr. President, this is the way the average family does it. You simply sit down, total up your resources, and then ensure that you don't subtract more from your resources than you actually have. This is what proponents of the line-item veto want for the President. I want to put this big, black Magic Marker in the hands of the President. I trust him enough to say, ``President Clinton, you take the line-item veto and mark off the things that we can't afford. You mark out the provincial, you mark out the parochial, you mark out the targeted spending that does nothing to help America. Then, you send it back here and force two-thirds of the Senate to vote to restore the individual appropriations. Mr. President, I believe it can work, and it is critically important that it does work. Because the debt of this country is being displaced on to the next generation. It is one of the truly tragic and unreported tragedy of our times. We need someone with the authority and the responsibility to draw a line through the Super Nintendos, through the things we do not fundamentally need and save this country for the next generation. We are $4.8 trillion in debt and the yet-unearned wages of the next generation are calling out for management, calling out for fiscal restraint, calling out for fiscal responsibility. We cannot allow ourselves to continually be the subject of the legislative blackmail of which Harry Truman spoke. We should give the President the authority to do in the Oval Office what every family does at the kitchen table. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Arizona for posing the question. Let me just go to the bank of experience--which is the best teacher. We have 43 States with the line-item veto, and if the kind of abuse the Senator describes were really available to a person wielding the power of a line-item veto, I would expect to know of at least one State where someone was seeking to repeal the line-item veto. If it were tremendous arbitrary and capricious misuse, or even political retribution or punishment--you would think there would be an outcry across the country among the States that have it now. But, it is because the way the line-item veto is working in the States that have it now which is in turn making the Nation want it. Citizens across the country see how it works well in their home State. So the Governors, I do not think, have been labeled as having abused their power under the line-item veto. Let me point out why I think it is true that the Governors do not abuse the power, Mr. President. It is because no State Governor--and no President of the United States--can put a single dollar into the Government's budget. Most State constitutions--and that of the United States of America--require that revenue measures commence in the House of Representatives or its equivalent in the legislative branch. The President or a Governor will have projects that he knows are important to him and that he will want to be included in the budget. But the President knows if he operates arbitrarily and capriciously with the legislative branch, then he cannot rely on the legislative branch to include his projects and priorities. When there is that kind of mutuality of reliance to get good projects done, neither of the parties in the process can afford to be capricious, arbitrary, or unreasonable in the way they handle their responsibilities. I emphasize that Presidents have legislative packages they think need to be undertaken. They cannot pass them or enact them themselves. They require individuals in the legislative branch to do that for them. If Presidents were to abuse the legislative branch by arbitrarily or capriciously wielding the line-item veto, there would be more recourse than they would want to endure emanating from the legislative branch. So let me note two things, Mr. President. In theory, there is really no sound basis for the argument that there would be abuse of the line- item veto by the President. But second, we do not have to rely on theory alone. We can look to the real life example of about 43 States where the line-item veto is successfully used by the executive over and over again, and where there is real negotiation between parties of fragmented political power--meaning the legislature and the executive branches of Government. Neither have power to do everything themselves--they must negotiate between them--and those negotiations result in government being carried on. The key difference between the States, where you have the line-item veto, and the Federal Government, where you do not have the line-item veto--and there is one key difference, Mr. President--is that we now have balanced budgets in the States. We do not have a balanced budget in the Federal Government. So I do not fear an inappropriate use of the line-item veto by the President. If he were to use it inappropriately, I think the legislative branch would say to him ``you are not going to have our cooperation when you need it because you have acted inappropriately.'' Of course, there is an ultimate arbiter of the conduct of the President of the United States: That is the American people. If they saw the President of the United States abusing his power in such a manner, he would not be President for long.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of the line-item veto. Most Members--as a matter of fact, 66 of the Members of this body-- were willing to express a strong preference for a balanced budget amendment just a few weeks ago. Someday, we will get the 67th Member and have a balanced budget amendment. It is because the American people overwhelmingly endorse the concept of a balanced budget that I rise today to discuss extending the line-item veto authority to the President. The truth is that a balanced budget amendment is a statement of an aspiration or a goal. It is an objective. The line-item veto, however, is something different. It is one of the ways that we can achieve the aforementioned goal. It is the mechanism by which we achieve that end. The line-item veto then is a tool which will allow us to achieve a goal, and the goal is fiscal integrity. Fiscal integrity is very important. As a matter of fact, the dramatic events that followed our vote on the balanced budget amendment, as it related to the value of the dollar, demonstrate that the world understands the importance of fiscal integrity. When the U.S. Senate failed to pass the balanced budget amendment, the value of the dollar on international markets plummeted. We need to put our fiscal house in order. One important way to do that is to put the line-item veto in the hands of the President of the United States. The line-item veto, then, is a tool. It gives the President the authority to do what needs to be done to knock those items out of the budget that we simply do not have the resources to afford. Of course, along with any authority goes responsibility. If we give this authority to the President of the United States, we should call upon him to exercise that authority and if, in fact, he does not exercise that authority, then the people can hold him accountable. Too much of our problem in the budgetary universe right now is finger pointing. The President points to the Congress and says, ``They appropriated it, and I couldn't veto part of it. I had to take all or none of it, so I took it all.'' So the President does not accept responsibility. Then, the Congress says to the President, ``Well, you signed the budget; it's your fault.'' We need to endow the President of the United States with both the authority and the responsibility to knock things out of the budget which we simply cannot afford understanding our present resources. Mr. President, one of the reasons I speak with so much confidence about the line-item veto is that I spent 8 years as Governor of the State of Missouri. There, we had both the goal and the aspiration of a balanced budget because our State constitution requires it. These, then, were the tools that achieve his goal. Having this authority meant that it was my responsibility to look at our budget and to eliminate those things which we could not afford, to defer those things which we could not afford. I guess I want you to know that I believe that frequently legislators and governmental officials have aspirations and eyes that are bigger than their resources. When I was a boy, my mom used to say to me, ``Your eyes are bigger than your stomach. You are loading up your plate and you are not going to be able to finish the meal.'' The truth of the matter is, when we load up our plate with more spending than we have resources to pay for them, somebody ought to be able to take that back off our plate or else we are placing ourselves, or by extension the Nation, in serious jeopardy. Not only as a military power, but as a financial power; not only as intellectual leaders, but as leaders in terms of fiscal integrity. Mr. President, our eyes have been bigger than our pocketbooks, and we need to give the President the right to take some of the stuff off our congressional plate. During my 8 years as Governor, we did just that. We had to knock things off the plate. I remember having to veto special services to prisoners, not because the services to the prisoners were particularly bad. I had to veto those items because we could not afford them. I remember when the general assembly wanted to increase funding for the State fair to elevate our capacity to showcase the wonderful hand crafts and industrial and agricultural products of our State. But I had to say, ``Well, that would be a great thing to do and I understand how much you considered that and how important that was, but I had to draw a line through that item because we couldn't afford it.'' One of Missouri's biggest industries is tourism, especially with the advent of Branson, the new country music capital of the world. We wanted to promote tourism in the State. We wanted to welcome people aggressively when they came to Missouri. I remember being a part of a number of those programs. I remember going to a tourist information center and washing cars for tourists one day to show them how important we thought they were in coming to the State of Missouri. But when a couple of tourist information centers showed up on the budget that we did not have the money for, I regrettably had to draw the line through those things. It was not a matter of saying those things were not good. It was not a matter of saying the legislature did not have the right motivation. It was a matter of exercising the fiscal discipline necessary to balance the budget. It was not popular when I looked at the budget one year, and we were not having a good year--the legislature passed a substantial increase in the salaries of State employees. They worked hard and I respected them. I said, ``We simply can't make those increased salaries due to insufficent funds. I have to exercise the line-item veto.'' The point is that there are times when you simply want things, but you have inadequate resources with which to pay for them. Mr. President, these efforts on behalf of the American taxpayer are not unique to me. Forty-three States give their Governor the authority and responsibility of the line-item veto. Forty-three different Governors do it. It is something that is expected. It is done successfully. Mr. President, every kitchen table in America has a line-item veto. I have a chart which illustrates what happens with ordinary families. They sit down and figure out what they would like to have, and then calculate whether or not they have the money and resources to do. The things you can afford to do, you do; and the things you cannot afford to do, you eliminate. In short, you set priorities. You know you are going to pay your rent. But if things are not going too well, the trip to Disney World is probably a candidate for the line-item veto. When you say you cannot afford the trip to Disney World, that is not necessarily indicating that it is bad to go to Disney World. You are simply indicating that financial considerations may find you at an out-state park, instead of Orlando. Mr. President, you are also going to have to pay the taxes. You would like to have the retirement fund, but you might not commit as many funds. The new car probably gets cut. Cable television may lose the premium channels. Boy, it would be hard to cut off ESPN's analysis of ``March Madness.'' In the end, you have to set priorities. The average kitchen table in America does it; 43 Governors do it; why shouldn't the U.S. Congress give the President the authority to do it? Now, Mr. President, there are some things that are far less worthy than the things I just listed. Some of the things that wind up in the Federal budget are nothing more, nor less, than people simply allocating resources to favored interests in their own State. That is what people outside the beltway call pork; and that is what the President of the United States should have the authority to eliminate. One of the reasons this out-of-control spending must stop is that we have a $4.5 trillion debt; $4.5 trillion is a lot of money, but it is somewhat hard to comprehend. But simply put, it is almost $18,000 of debt for every man, woman, and child in America. Consequently, for a family of four--if my mathematics are correct--their share of the Federal debt amounts to $72,000. Of course, the average family would probably have a real problem considering any new spending if they were forced to labor under an extra $72,000 of debt that had to be paid off. One of the problems with this amount of debt is that it adds yet another big expense that is not listed on this table--and that is interest. Now, Mr. President, if your household's interest payments get to be quite large, they impair you from being able to do the things you would otherwise want to do. In the United States, our $4.5 trillion Federal debt is requiring the Government to spend money on interest instead of the other essential services and programs the American people have indicated they want. Things which are as essential to Government as braces would be for a child, or maintenance and repairs would be to a house, or a retirement fund would be to a person's future. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of talk about Social Security on the floor of the Senate. However, the biggest single threat to Social Security is the national debt which is consuming our ability to pay for the things we really need. And if the national debt continues to increase, our corporate retirement fund in America--Social Security--is going to be impaired. Not because we do not have some language in a law, but because we have spent our--and the next generation's resources--recklessly. It is with that in mind that I rise to support the concept of the line-item veto. It is a needed tool in the hands of those that the American people call upon to manage our Government responsibly. We must again establish fiscal integrity in the public sector. We must show this Nation and others that our Government can be responsible. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, we hope to complete action on the supplemental bill tomorrow. Therefore, Senators should be aware that rollcall votes are expected throughout tomorrow's session.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, as if in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of Executive Calendar Nos. 32 and 33 en bloc; further, that the nominations be confirmed, en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record; and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 8, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then immediately resume consideration of H.R. 889, the supplemental appropriations bill.