Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. If I could comment on the question, I find it interesting for those who supported Janet Reno for Attorney General and supported President Clinton's Presidential nominees in that office, which nominees, after confirmed, are saying Estrada's notes should not be made public, are saying those nominees are wrong.

Mr. BENNETT. As the Senator from Pennsylvania seeks to find a reason for opposing Mr. Miguel Estrada, I suggest to him one that comes out of yesterday's editorial in the Washington Post, as the Washington Post points out that Mr. Estrada did not cooperate with the Democrats in producing a case against him. Then it says, Because it stems from his own and the administration's discourteous refusal to arm Democrats with examples of the extremism that would justify their opposition, they are opposed to him. The editorial concludes: Such circular logic should not stall Mr. Estrada's confirmation any longer. I agree with the Washington Post in this circumstance. It may be they were hoping he would be cooperative enough to give them something to use against him and when he refused to do that, and indeed his background says there is nothing in there he could have given them, in anger they decided to turn against him. As the Senator looks for some reason why they are opposed to him, maybe they are just disappointed over the fact he passed?

Mr. BENNETT. It is my understanding that Mr. Estrada was employed during the Reno Justice Department; is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have been an observer of all of these debates about judges because I am not a lawyer and I don't sit on the Judiciary Committee, but I have been interested to note that when President Bush became the President, he announced he would not allow the American Bar Association to, in effect, veto Presidential nominees. He said the Constitution doesn't give the American Bar Association any right to determine who should be on the Federal bench and who should not, and that he would not bow to the American Bar Association for their recommendations. Our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, in the popular phrase of the teenagers, went ballistic. They said the American Bar Association was the gold standard by which everybody should be judged. And Senator Leahy, when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, made it very clear that even though a recommendation from the American Bar Association is extraconstitutional, he would apply that extraconstitutional test to everyone who came up; and if they did not pass that test--extraconstitutional though it is--they could not be confirmed. He made that very clear. I am grateful to him for his candor. I appreciate the fact he was open with this body and the American public that that particular test was being added to the constitutional test that a nominee should pass. Now we have someone before us who passes not only the constitutional test but the extraconstitutional test laid down by the Democrats. He is not only qualified--according to the American Bar Association, ``well qualified''--he was found unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association. Yet Senator Leahy is leading a form of filibuster against this nominee that gives rise to this question, which I have asked on the floor before and, undoubtedly, in this extended debate I will ask again. I would ask Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy, and the others: What additional, extraconstitutional test have you devised that you are applying to nominees for the judiciary? You have told us the first one. You have been very up front about it and tell us what additional, extraconstitutional test you have determined must be passed by a nominee because there is no obvious reason this nominee should be objected to; there is no obvious reason every single Democrat on the Judiciary Committee should have voted against him and we should see the coming of a filibuster against his nomination. The Senators are exercising their rights. I do not object to them exercising their rights, but I do ask them very respectfully to tell us the nature of the test they are applying to these nominees so that we can know in advance in future circumstances which nominees will not pass their test, which nominees will fail that test. In order to do that, we need to know what that test is.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, all that needs to be said has been said by the President and others about the shuttle disaster. I simply note the people of Utah are particularly distressed, not only with the human tragedy that affects all Americans but because the space program is very close to the hearts of all Utahans. My predecessor in the Senate, Jake Garn, was an astronaut on the shuttle. The Jake Garn Space Center at Utah State University is named after the Senator. The schoolchildren of Utah assembled project ``Star Shine,'' which was a school science project that was carried into space by the shuttle. So all Utahans join in expressing our condolences to the families, and our determination that space exploration by this country will nonetheless still go forward.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am proud to join the Senator from Vermont today to introduce the Artist-Museum Partnership Act. He and I have introduced this legislation in the past, and we hope that our colleagues will see this bill for what it is: a reasonable solution to an unintentional inequity in our tax code. This legislation would allow living artists to deduct the fair-market value of their art work when they contribute their work to museums or other public institutions. As the tax code is currently written, art collectors are able to deduct the fair market value of any piece of art they donate to a museum. However, if the artist who created that same piece of work were to donate it, he or she would only be able to deduct the material cost of the work, which may be nothing more than a canvas, a tube of paint, and a wooden frame. Thus, there exists a disincentive for artists to donate their work to museums. The solution is simple: treat collectors and artists the same way. This bill would do just that. Certainly, this bill would benefit artists, but more importantly, the beneficiaries would be the museums that would receive the art work and the general public who would be able to view it in a timely manner. This change in the tax code would increase the number of original pieces donated to public institutions, giving scholars greater access to an artist's work during the lifetime of that artist, as well as provide for an increase in the public display of such work. I would like to thank Senator Leahy for his work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation. The fiscal impact of the Artist-Museum Partnership Act on the Federal budget would be minimal, but the benefit to our nation's cultural and artistic heritage cannot be overstated. This minor correction to the tax code is long overdue, and the Senate should act on this legislation to remedy the problem.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am proud to join the Senator from Vermont today to introduce the Artist-Museum Partnership Act. He and I have introduced this legislation in the past, and we hope that our colleagues will see this bill for what it is: a reasonable solution to an unintentional inequity in our tax code. This legislation would allow living artists to deduct the fair-market value of their art work when they contribute their work to museums or other public institutions. As the tax code is currently written, art collectors are able to deduct the fair market value of any piece of art they donate to a museum. However, if the artist who created that same piece of work were to donate it, he or she would only be able to deduct the material cost of the work, which may be nothing more than a canvas, a tube of paint, and a wooden frame. Thus, there exists a disincentive for artists to donate their work to museums. The solution is simple: treat collectors and artists the same way. This bill would do just that. Certainly, this bill would benefit artists, but more importantly, the beneficiaries would be the museums that would receive the art work and the general public who would be able to view it in a timely manner. This change in the tax code would increase the number of original pieces donated to public institutions, giving scholars greater access to an artist's work during the lifetime of that artist, as well as provide for an increase in the public display of such work. I would like to thank Senator Leahy for his work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation. The fiscal impact of the Artist-Museum Partnership Act on the Federal budget would be minimal, but the benefit to our nation's cultural and artistic heritage cannot be overstated. This minor correction to the tax code is long overdue, and the Senate should act on this legislation to remedy the problem.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mount Naomi Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act. Included in the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984, the Mount Naomi Wilderness is one of Utah's largest wilderness areas at over 44,000 acres. It is a very scenic area and contains some of the best examples of alpine terrain in the intermountain west. There are large populations of moose, elk, and deer. It is an area truly worthy of its designation. Unfortunately the boundaries were drawn in such a way as to have some unintended consequences. Running through the wilderness is a utility corridor, containing a major electricity transmission line. This power line serves the residents of Logan and the whole south end of Cache Valley. Because of restrictions in the Wilderness Act of 1964, maintaining and repairing the power line will be very difficult in the future. Also impacted by Mount Naomi's boundaries is one of Utah's most popular hiking and mountain biking trails: the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. The Bonneville Shoreline Trail, when completed will be over 250 miles in length. Starting in Nephi and heading north into Idaho, the trail will follow the shoreline of ancient Lake Bonneville. The alignment of the trail is planned to go through a small part of the Mount Naomi Wilderness. While hikers and equestrian users would be permitted to use this section of the trail, mountain bikers would be prohibited. The city of Logan has tried to work to change the alignment to adjacent private property to no avail. The legislation I am introducing today would redraw the boundaries of the Mount Naomi Wilderness. The acreage of this wilderness area would not change, thirty-one current acres would be excluded and thirty-one new acres would be added. The newly added lands will be managed pursuant to the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984. The boundaries will now better reflect the topography of Mount Naomi and the inconsistent uses will be removed from the wilderness. This legislation was originally offered in the 107th Congress by former Representative Jim Hansen. It passed the House of Representatives but was never acted upon by the Senate. The city of Logan, Cache County, and the United States Forest Service all are supportive of this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation this session.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Visitor Center Act. Long a haven for migratory birds, the Bear River marshes provide millions of birds with habitat and food. In 1928, in response to a series of devastating outbreaks of avian botulism, which killed thousands of birds along the river, Congress established the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. It serves to provide habitat for waterfowl, protect waterfowl from botulism outbreaks, and provide recreational and education opportunities to the public. In 1983, floods breached the refuge dikes, destroyed the visitor center, and contaminated the rich wildlife habitat. Thanks to the great efforts of Al Trout, the refuge manager, refuge employees, and numerous volunteers, an increasing number of both waterfowl and humans are visiting the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge each year. Today, the Bear River Refuge encompasses 74,000 acres and has provided refuge for over 220 recorded waterfowl species. However, a new visitor center for the refuge has yet to be built. As such, rich educational opportunities associated with visitor center programs and exhibits are not available to the public. Aware of the benefits of such a center, a number of local communities, the Friends of Bear River Bird Refuge, and other nonprofit organizations have raised over $1.5 million for the project. This legislation would authorize $11 million to be used for the construction of an Education Center and Administrative Facility. Such a facility would both generate much needed public awareness of our national wildlife refuge system and significantly enhance the visiting public's refuge experience. A visitor center at the Bear River Migratory bird Refuge will result in a more meaningful, educational, and accessible experience for the visiting public. I believe that this legislation is an exciting opportunity to showcase the many wildlife and natural treasures that Utah's Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge contains. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation this session.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mount Naomi Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act. Included in the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984, the Mount Naomi Wilderness is one of Utah's largest wilderness areas at over 44,000 acres. It is a very scenic area and contains some of the best examples of alpine terrain in the intermountain west. There are large populations of moose, elk, and deer. It is an area truly worthy of its designation. Unfortunately the boundaries were drawn in such a way as to have some unintended consequences. Running through the wilderness is a utility corridor, containing a major electricity transmission line. This power line serves the residents of Logan and the whole south end of Cache Valley. Because of restrictions in the Wilderness Act of 1964, maintaining and repairing the power line will be very difficult in the future. Also impacted by Mount Naomi's boundaries is one of Utah's most popular hiking and mountain biking trails: the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. The Bonneville Shoreline Trail, when completed will be over 250 miles in length. Starting in Nephi and heading north into Idaho, the trail will follow the shoreline of ancient Lake Bonneville. The alignment of the trail is planned to go through a small part of the Mount Naomi Wilderness. While hikers and equestrian users would be permitted to use this section of the trail, mountain bikers would be prohibited. The city of Logan has tried to work to change the alignment to adjacent private property to no avail. The legislation I am introducing today would redraw the boundaries of the Mount Naomi Wilderness. The acreage of this wilderness area would not change, thirty-one current acres would be excluded and thirty-one new acres would be added. The newly added lands will be managed pursuant to the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984. The boundaries will now better reflect the topography of Mount Naomi and the inconsistent uses will be removed from the wilderness. This legislation was originally offered in the 107th Congress by former Representative Jim Hansen. It passed the House of Representatives but was never acted upon by the Senate. The city of Logan, Cache County, and the United States Forest Service all are supportive of this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation this session.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Visitor Center Act. Long a haven for migratory birds, the Bear River marshes provide millions of birds with habitat and food. In 1928, in response to a series of devastating outbreaks of avian botulism, which killed thousands of birds along the river, Congress established the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. It serves to provide habitat for waterfowl, protect waterfowl from botulism outbreaks, and provide recreational and education opportunities to the public. In 1983, floods breached the refuge dikes, destroyed the visitor center, and contaminated the rich wildlife habitat. Thanks to the great efforts of Al Trout, the refuge manager, refuge employees, and numerous volunteers, an increasing number of both waterfowl and humans are visiting the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge each year. Today, the Bear River Refuge encompasses 74,000 acres and has provided refuge for over 220 recorded waterfowl species. However, a new visitor center for the refuge has yet to be built. As such, rich educational opportunities associated with visitor center programs and exhibits are not available to the public. Aware of the benefits of such a center, a number of local communities, the Friends of Bear River Bird Refuge, and other nonprofit organizations have raised over $1.5 million for the project. This legislation would authorize $11 million to be used for the construction of an Education Center and Administrative Facility. Such a facility would both generate much needed public awareness of our national wildlife refuge system and significantly enhance the visiting public's refuge experience. A visitor center at the Bear River Migratory bird Refuge will result in a more meaningful, educational, and accessible experience for the visiting public. I believe that this legislation is an exciting opportunity to showcase the many wildlife and natural treasures that Utah's Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge contains. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation this session.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, throughout the day today there has been a lot of discussion of the President's State of the Union Message. I was interested in the comment that was in the press this morning that said the President gave two speeches. The first one has been virtually forgotten. The first one was on our domestic issues, on our economy, on what we need to do to deal with some of our problems at home. I think the Senator from Virginia has appropriately and properly addressed the question of the second speech which had to do with Iraq, but since much of the rhetoric we have heard today has had to do with the deficit and attacks on the President's first speech, I will take a few minutes to go back to that first speech, that forgotten speech, the first half of the President's statement on the state of the Union, and talk about some economic impact of what would happen if we were to do what the President wanted us to do. From the rhetoric we have heard today, all of our problems stem from one thing and one thing only, and that is the tax cut that passed very strongly in this Chamber and in the other body when the Presidency of George W. Bush began. If we had only not passed that tax cut, we would not have a deficit. If we had only not passed that tax cut, we would have enough money to fund everything. If we had only not passed that tax cut, somehow Medicare would be taken care of as far as the eye can see and Social Security would be secure forever. Everything stems from that terrible tax cut. I remind us once again of a few fairly basic, fundamental truths. We can choose, at least for a time, what level of expenditures we will have in the Federal Government. We can get carried away with our ability to make pledges for expenditures, and we can set the level wherever we want. We cannot choose, by legislative fiat, the level of revenue that will come to pay for that level of expenditure, because the level of revenue goes up and down as the economy prospers or falters. I have seen examples of countries in Africa that laid out a budget of expenditures that was absolutely marvelous in all of the benefits that would come from their government spending on this and that and the other thing. Anything that anybody wanted, the government promised to take care of them. But they discovered the fundamental truth I have just stated: They could set the level of expenditures pretty much where they wanted, but with their economy not producing any money their level of taxation came nowhere near the level of expenditure. We must ask ourselves, what is going to happen to the economy if the proposal that the President's tax cut be repealed should pass? That question was put to Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and he answered in a way that requires a little careful attention, because some people picked up on his answer and said: Aha, Greenspan has said there will be no economic impact if the tax cuts are repealed. This is what he actually said--I do not have his exact words to quote, but in effect he said the markets have already assumed the tax cut will stay and indeed will be made permanent. Therefore, there is no further stimulus to come out of these tax cuts. So everybody says the tax cuts were not stimulative. However, he went on to say--and this paragraph they do not quote--if they were now repealed, the markets would react negatively. Having made the assumption that they will be permanent, the market would react negatively and the economy would be hurt. I raise that bit of history because I ask this rhetorical question: If the market has already assumed the tax cuts and acted favorably and positively to that assumption, what would happen if those tax cuts were not repealed, as some people in this Chamber charge, but were produced more rapidly, accelerated, rather than repealed? I think the market would respond positively. Say our first assumption that says they are going to remain permanent is not only proven valid by this but we will have the permanence come more rapidly than we thought. If the markets as a whole respond positively, if the economy as a whole responds positively, what does that do to tax revenue? It increases tax revenue so we can begin to have enough dollars to deal with the challenges of the expenditure side. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee. I remember attending the conference on the final appropriations bill--not this year because this year we did not get one until the new Congress convened; we did not have a final conference at the end of the last Congress. It was the final conference the year before where Senator Stevens came in and said this is the number that we have all agreed on for total appropriations and expenditures. It was substantially higher than the number where we began. He laid it on the table and said: This is the number. Even though it is significantly higher than we thought we would have and expenditures more than we thought, this is where we will be. Mr. Obey, the ranking member on the House side, said that number is not high enough. The number was a very significant increase over the previous year, substantially more than the growth in the population, substantially more than any inflation, but that became the number. We finally passed it this way in order to get out, and then we started the next year. At that period, Democrats were in charge of this Chamber and the spending went up significantly from that number. That is the new baseline. We have seen in this Congress attempts made to take that baseline even higher. The most significant thing the President had to say about our long- term economic health in last night's speech had nothing to do with the tax proposals. The most significant thing he had to say is: My budget will hold the spending increase to 4 percent. If we can hold the spending increase to 4 percent after years of 7 percent and 9 percent, one on top of the other, to establish a very high baseline for further increases, it will be something of a miracle. But it will be far more important than all of the other rhetoric we have heard on the tax side. If we can't get the spending under control, we cannot under any circumstances raise the taxes to cover it. That is a fundamental truth that we should remember over and over again. In concluding, I repeat something I have said here many times, but I have discovered in the Senate there is no such thing as reputation. Everything is said as if it is brand new. But it is a fundamental truth we should understand over and over again. Money does not come from the budget. Money does not come from legislation. Money comes into the Government from the productivity of the American economy. If we can make the economy strong, if we can make the economy grow, we will have the tax dollars that we need to pay for our expenditures. If we ignore the health of the economy and then get carried away with our desire to increase our expenditures, we will end up in fulfillment of the dire predictions we are hearing. That is not what the President is proposing, but what some of his opponents are proposing. I think the President was responsible in his first speech last night on the domestic economy. We ought to pay attention and act accordingly. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Presiding Officer of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort the President of the United States into the House Chamber for the joint session to be held tonight, Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 9 p.m.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand that under the previous order, at 4:15 we start going back and forth. I ask the Senator from New York, who is prepared under that order, if I might proceed for 5 to 7 minutes prior to his taking it? I do not wish to be discourteous to my colleague because I know he came over for the 4:15 slot.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator and appreciate the opportunity.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to H. Con. Res. 12, a resolution providing for a joint session of Congress, which is at the desk.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as I go out among my constituents, the one question I always get asked in these present times is: Are we going to go to war with Iraq? For a while my answer was, that is up to Saddam Hussein. It depends on how he acts and what he does, as to whether or not we are going to go to war with Iraq. But what he does now is fairly clear. The position he has taken is fairly clear. He made the comment to an Egyptian journalist, that has been repeated now around the world: Time is working for us. He has made it clear that he is not going to change. There will be no disarmament of Iraq from within. There will be no genuine cooperation with the inspectors. So I think my earlier answer probably is no longer correct. The decision now lies with President Bush: Will we go to war or won't we? In that circumstance, the President is being bombarded on all sides with editorial comment and punditry, with firm, solid recommendations, yes and no, depending on the ideological status of the particular pundit. They can make those firm recommendations from the safe, secure position of knowing that they will not have to be acted upon and that they will not be held accountable if their recommendation is followed and the result is not successful. The President faces what is clearly the most agonizing and difficult decision of his Presidency. I pray for him and urge other Americans to pray for him as he makes this decision. I want to lay down what I see as the challenge here. I do not think it is an easy question. I do not think it is clear, one way or the other. The truly Presidential decisions never are. If the decisions were easy, they would be made before they got to the level of the President. If the action was clear, smart people at lower levels of Government would take it. It is only when the decision is agonizingly close and the options not clear on either side that it ends up ultimately on the President's desk in the Oval Office and becomes his decision and his decision alone. This is what I see. Saddam Hussein is going through the motions of cooperating with the inspectors, and there are those who say: Let that process play out. We have him contained. As long as there are inspectors in the country, there will not be any effort to use weapons of mass destruction. Let's just let that play out. Then there are those who say: He has violated the resolution of the United Nations. The legal position is absolutely clear. If the United Nations and the United States are going to be taken seriously around the world, we must now take military action and we cannot wait any longer. I am sure those legal arguments with respect to Resolution 1441 in the United Nations are valid. I don't argue with them. But they don't change the practicality of the situation, that an attack on Iraq--even if it is justified under the legality of the United Nations resolution--might still prove to be a mistake. The solidity of the legal position with respect to Resolution 1441 is a legitimate question for Colin Powell to raise with his fellow diplomats, but it does not ease the agony of the necessity of making the final decision in the Oval Office. I believe that Saddam Hussein is cooperating with the investigators for one reason and one reason only; that is that American troops are massing on the border. He knows American military power is sufficient, if unleashed, to bring his regime down and probably end his life. He is taking every step he can to try prevent that. Those who say let this play out, leave the status quo and let it go forward, don't appreciate the difficulty of America keeping those troops on line, keeping those troops on the border, keeping those airplanes on alert so that he will continue to try to satisfy the inspectors. We cannot continue to do that for an extended period of time. It is not fair. It is not possible, given the lives and other challenges faced by these young people. At some point and at some point relatively soon, the President is going to have to make a decision to either move in or stand down. And the ultimate question here is not what is the legality of U.N. Resolution 1441 or what is the relevance of the United Nations in the world community. The ultimate question here is, What will be the result if he moves forward, and what will be the result if he stands down, he, in this case, of course, being President Bush. We have heard a lot of talk. That is not the right term. That implies something less than seriousness. We have heard a lot of analysis about what could happen if he moves forward. Some of the scenarios are very encouraging; some are frightening. We don't know in advance which ones would come true. We have had less analysis placed on the question of what would happen if the President orders the troops to stand down and start to come home. We do have some historic precedent for this. I remember going to the room in the Capitol on the fourth floor and hearing Madeleine Albright describe the situation in Iraq, in terms eerily familiar to the terms we are currently hearing from Secretary Powell. I remember walking out of that briefing in room 407 and saying to myself: We will be at war with Iraq within 3 days. Then President Clinton made the decision that we would stand down. American troops were not at the forward edge they are now, so that decision was not as difficult in terms of the logistics, as it would be for President Bush now. But at the same time, the progress being made then was not as good as it is now. President Clinton, for whatever reasons--good, bad, or indifferent--decided to stand down and the result has not been one with which the world is pleased. Now, if we stand down, the result ultimately, in my opinion, would be more devastating for world peace, long term, than if we move forward. I know how agonizing that decision must be for the President. I will look forward to listening to him discuss it with us tonight. I hope he will outline for us what would be the consequences if we stand down, in terms of American credibility--credibility that is not just saving face in some kind of psychological way, credibility that is essential to keeping the peace in the world. What would happen to those countries that are urging, hoping, praying for Saddam Hussein to be gone, if they said the Americans got this far, they came this close, and then they turned around and left? That means we cannot depend on the Americans ever again. We can't trust their word ever again. What would be the consequences of that? I think they would be serious. I remember a couplet I learned as a child. I never quite understood what it meant until someone in my later years explained the historic context. It is just a child's rhyme, but it was based on a historic event. It said: The King of France went up the hill With twenty thousand men; The King of France came down the hill, And ne'er went up again. There was even a tune that went to it. I will not duplicate Senator D'Amato and sing on the Senate floor. But that is where we are. The King of France went up the hill With twenty thousand men; The king of France came down the hill, And ne'er went up again. The United States of America, acting on a 15-to-nothing resolution out of the Security Council of the United Nations, as well as an overwhelming vote in this Chamber and in the other body, has marched up the hill and told Saddam Hussein he must disarm. Now there are those who say because he has stopped producing these weapons, as long as these troops are at his border we can afford to turn around and march down again. It is, as I said, an agonizing decision. It will be made by the President of the United States. He will not ask my advice, for I have no expertise in these matters. But my constituents do ask me about it because I represent them in this body. I think having marched up the hill, having taken the United Nations Resolution 1441 at its face value, and having stood the troops there, that has produced the results we have had so far. We cannot now back down. I wish the President well. As I said, he is in my prayers, and I hope that of all Americans, as he makes this most momentous decision. The consequence is: What happens if we do? And what happens if we do not? I wish the President well as he makes that analysis. I have confidence in this President and his instincts that he will, in fact, ultimately make the correct decision.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chairman. ergonomics regulation

Mr. BENNETT. The chairman may be aware that drought in the west has caused record low water levels in Lake Powell at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Does the chairman agree that the National Park Service should use funds available in its repair and rehabilitation account to address the recreation infrastructure needs that have arisen because of these low water levels?

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for a moving and insightful tribute to William Wilburforce, someone I never heard of before I came to the Senate. Now many of our colleagues have talked about him in the same vein as the Senator from Florida has. Picking up from the theme he has established, I would like to talk briefly about the legacy of Martin Luther King. I was in Washington when the great march took place that led to Dr. Martin Luther King's moving address ``I Have a Dream'' occurred. One of the interesting things about that address from which I take some comfort is Dr. King left his established transcript in the speech. He started out sticking to the transcript, and as the speech built he became overcome with the spirit of what he was doing, and extemporaneously launched into the soaring phrases that he outlined of ``I Have a Dream,'' and he described to America what he saw. One of the interesting ironies of today's debate about civil rights is the dream Martin Luther King, Jr. saw in the eyes of many is being turned on its head. He saw a country where color would make no difference, where it would make no difference in employment, where it would make no difference in academic admission, where people would be judged on the basis of anything but their skin color. He had a dream that that time would come. I will not go into detail about the current fight that is going on with respect to the University of Michigan, but I do wonder aloud how you can square what has been going on at the University of Michigan with Dr. King's dream. If at the time he had given that speech the University of Michigan had a rating system for all of its applicants and said if you are white we will give you an automatic 20 points on our rating system, but we will deny those points to anyone who is Hispanic, Asian, or African in heritage, I think Dr. King would have had a few things to say about the inequities of that. I think clearly he would have condemned that, and he should have condemned that. Now some of those who claim to be his spiritual heirs are applauding that when it is applied in reverse. I will leave that matter to the courts. I will let that play itself out however it happens. But I want to make this one further observation. What does that tell us about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? That tells us he had parents who were married to each other, who were stable in their family, who loved him, and who raised him in a family circumstance. The African-American woman who has achieved perhaps the highest degree of success in contemporary society is Condoleeza Rice. What do we know about Condoleeza Rice and her rise in this struggle? We know that she was born in Birmingham, AL where Dr. King wrote the letters from a Birmingham jail. We know at the time Birmingham, AL was regarded as the most heavily segregated city in the United States. We know that is where the riots were. That is where Dr. King was arrested. That is where he wrote his letters from that jail. That is where Condoleeza Rice grew up. We know this about Condoleeza Rice. She had parents who were married to each other, who loved each other, and who provided her with a home in which she learned. One of the things she learned, as outlined in her biography, was because she was black and female she would have to be twice as good and work twice as hard in order to make it in the white world. Instead of protesting that, instead of taking to the streets and complaining about that inequity, Condoleeza Rice determined she would indeed be twice as good and work twice as hard as any of her contemporaries. The story is told that when she was at school at the college level, one of her professors began to lay out the case that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. Condoleeza Rice as a young student spoke up and said, We are the ones who play Beethoven and speak French. What about you? She is an accomplished concert pianist. She went on to a Ph.D. and she became the youngest and first female provost at Stanford University with an outstanding career as she worked twice as hard to be twice as good as anybody else. Some would argue that the most successful black African-American of our time is Secretary Colin Powell. I have read his biography. I find, among other things, that what he talks about, in his experience dealing with segregation and discrimination in America and growing up following the contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, is his family. He had parents who were married to each other and who provided him with a loving and nurturing home situation. He describes that in his biography. I suggest this because I think there is a clear thread here. Martin Luther King, Jr., came from a stable family. Condoleezza Rice came from a stable family. Colin Powell came from a stable family. And in the same period that Martin Luther King, Jr., was making his contribution, a young staffer in the Johnson administration named Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote prophetically of the breakup of Black families in America and talked about what would happen to the African-American community if the family cohesion that had been there before was somehow not preserved. The predictions and implications of former Senator Moynihan's work have come true, tragically. Today, over two-thirds of the children born to African-American mothers are born outside of a formal marriage, outside of a stable family, outside of that one constant that provided the launching pad for the careers of those who have been successful among us. Of course, the lack of a family, the lack of loving parents who are married to each other and provide a nurturing circumstance--the devastation of that lack knows no racial boundaries. White students, Asian students, Hispanic students--whoever it might be--who come out of a circumstance where they do not have a stable family relationship are statistically at far greater risk educationally, economically, socially--every other way--than those who come from a family background. So as we celebrate rightly Dr. Martin Luther King and his contribution to this country, we should also recognize the importance of sustaining traditional family values in this country for everyone, regardless of race. And I would think that adding to Dr. Martin Luther King's dream, we should have a dream of a time when no child is reared in a circumstance where there is not a loving support system. Now, it need not always be blood relatives. Clarence Thomas, who sits on the Supreme Court, has written movingly of his family, but his family was a family of Catholic nuns who gathered around him and provided surrogate parenthood and gave him the kind of nurturing opportunity as a young man that he needed if he was going to succeed. We should understand that there is no substitute in Government programs for that kind of nurturing background. And we should look around us at the role models who have overcome discrimination and segregation and achieved greatness and recognize that the common thread throughout most of their lives is some kind of family background, family stability; nurturing, supporting activities when they were in their formative years. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have listened with some interest to the Democratic leader outline the Democratic attitude with respect to the economy and what needs to be done. I think a few comments in response are in order. I detect a particular misunderstanding in all of this debate on the part of the Democratic leader and some others on his side of the aisle. It is a misunderstanding that is understandable but one that needs to be cleared up. He talks about jobs that have been lost and jobs that will be created as if the Government creates jobs. The Government cannot create jobs. If the Government could wave its magic legislative wand and in that process create jobs and prosperity, every government would do it. Every President, Republican or Democrat, every Congress, Republican or Democrat, if it had the ability by legislation to create jobs, would do it. The fundamental problem that gets overlooked is that prosperity does not come as a result of government action. Prosperity comes as a result of activity on the part of individuals operating in a free economy. Because our economy is arguably the freest in the world, it is also the most productive in the world, creates the greatest amount of wealth and the greatest number of jobs. If you want to go someplace where the hand of government is considerably heavier than it is here and see the result of it, go to Europe where they do many of the things that our Democratic friends think have to be done and, in the process, hold down the entrepreneurial spirit of the economy to such an extent that the net creation of jobs in Europe over significant periods of time is zero. Statistically if you want to get a job in Europe, somebody has to retire because that job has to be vacated before you can step into it. They do not know how to create new jobs and new economic activity. We complain about the state of the American economy and, indeed, we are in what Chairman Greenspan has appropriately called ``a soft patch.'' But we need only look at other economies around the world to see how much more trouble they are in with more regulation, more taxation, and more governmental interference in the economy than we have. The other misunderstanding that we get in all of these arguments about fairness is that somehow the economy is static or, as the mathematicians would say, a sum zero game. A sum zero game is a game in which for one side to win a point, the other side must lose a point. So you take one point lost and one point gained and add them up, and they add up to zero. The assumption is that if a millionaire earns a dollar, it has somehow been taken out of the pockets of the poor. If one segment of the economy prospers, it has somehow been at the expense of another segment of the economy. It is a sum zero game. So the Democratic leader is saying: It is not fair for Americans to be called upon to go to the gulf in a war circumstance while other Americans are earning $1 million, as if there were any connection whatsoever between those two activities. Indeed, if Americans are not prospering on the economic side, there isn't any money to pay governmental salaries on the governmental side, whether for the military, civil service, or our own staff. The only reason we can receive salaries here, either as Members of Congress or our staff, is not because Government has created these jobs; it is because hard-working Americans have created enough wealth that taxation of that wealth can produce enough money to pay our salaries. We do not contribute directly to the growth of the economy, except as we maintain policies that allow those who do contribute to move in a free-market situation. Government can stifle growth. We can see that among the Europeans and, to a greater degree, in the former Communist countries, government can stifle growth. But government cannot create growth. Government cannot create wealth. Again, if government could create wealth, every government would do it. Historically, wealth is created by two things. No. 1, accumulated capital, and then its wise use. If you are in a situation where no one can accumulate any capital, you are not going to have any growth and you are not going to have any wealth. But if you have a circumstance where people can accumulate capital and use that capital wisely, then you are going to have growth. The second ingredient that must be there besides accumulated capital is risk taking. There is no wealth created unless somebody takes a risk somewhere along the way. Economics is about incentives. What is President Bush's program designed to do? It is designed to increase the incentives to create wealth. The Democratic plan would diminish the incentives to create wealth. They might end up with what they would consider ``total fairness''--in other words, everybody would be equally poverty stricken and, by definition, that is fair, but nobody would be better off. We have to ask the fundamental question as we are dealing with economic policy: What will produce the greatest amount of growth in the American economy? What will produce the greatest amount of wealth within the American borders? That is a very different kind of question than the Democrats want to ask. That is a very different kind of circumstance than they want to address. But at the base, if there is no creation of wealth, if there is no growth in the economy, there are no tax revenues, there is no money to distribute to all of the programs we all love so much and that we want to deliver home to our constituents. It all comes down, fundamentally, to the sound nature of the economy itself. Once again, the two absolute essentials for economic growth are, No. 1, accumulated capital and, No. 2, rewards for risk taking. Let me give you a very simple, fundamental demonstration that comes out of a program that I have supported as long as I have been in the Senate and that many people around here support but many others know nothing about it. It is called the microloan program. This is a real-life example that illustrates what I am talking about. A woman in a Third World country was living on absolutely subsistence wages. She got paid every day at the end of the day, just barely enough to keep her alive. She could not accumulate any wealth because she was not paid enough to save anything and she could not carry her salary from day to day. She was living under absolute subsistence conditions. Under the microloan program, enough money was made available to her in the form of a loan, accumulated capital. She didn't think of it as accumulated capital, but that is what it was. Someone had accumulated enough capital that they could loan her enough money to buy two chickens, a rooster and a hen. Out of those two chickens, representing accumulated capital, she began an egg business. She took a risk and somebody else took a risk in making her the loan. She took a risk. She got ahold of some accumulated capital and she began her own business. Today, that woman employs a fairly significant number of other women, and that woman proudly says: I have sent my child to college. No member of our family has ever gone to college in the history of the family. But because of the start I got with those two chickens--representing accumulated capital--and the risk I took to start that business--the incentive was there to take the risk--now we have created enough wealth that not only is my family prospering, other people are employed, and my children have educational opportunities that no member of our family has ever had. Now, we don't have such an example here in America because, frankly, no one in America lives at the level of poverty at which she lived. We don't have that kind of example. But the principles are still there. If you can get people to accumulate capital--that is, not spend it all-- and then use it wisely to create wealth, you will have a prosperous economy with many people working, paying taxes, and producing ultimately the kind of wherewithal that we need here to fund all the programs that we all love so much. So the arguments we are getting over the President's economic plan ignore the fundamental question: Will this program produce growth in the economy, accelerated growth in the economy, over time? If the answer is yes, then we should do it. If the answer is no, then we should not. It is as simple as that. The arguments based on a zero sum game mentality are that it is not right for this person to prosper if this one doesn't. It is not right for this woman to have these two chickens if there is somebody else who doesn't, so let's make sure nobody gets any extra chickens. This is shortsighted and it hurts everybody. If the economy as a whole is growing, that is longheaded, and it helps everybody. As I have said before, during the 1990s, when things were booming, Chairman Greenspan came before the Banking Committee on which I sit-- and also the Joint Economic Committee, which if we can ever resolve the organizational problems here, at some future point I will chair-- and Chairman Greenspan was asked two questions. The first question I asked him. I said: In this time of boom, Mr. Chairman, can we assume that the business cycle has been repealed and that there will never be a period of bust? He smiled a little wryly and said: No, Senator, we have not repealed the business cycle, and the bust is coming. Now, it is not coming because of government. It was not coming because we did something on the Senate floor. It came because the business cycle always comes through a series of circumstances that I will describe in another speech on the floor. But the downturn that we had at the end of the boom was virtually inevitable, and to blame anybody in government for it is, frankly, political opportunism. The polls show that most Americans understand that. They don't buy the class warfare arguments that have been raised saying it was Bush's election that caused the downturn. It was caused by the excesses of the nineties. The downturn is a correction of those, and in the long term it is a healthy kind of thing. The second question Chairman Greenspan was asked was: In this time of boom, who is benefiting the most? The Senator who asked that question, obviously, had the answer already in his mind. The answer that he was going to give was the same answer we heard on the floor from the Democratic leader--that the people benefiting the most from this boom are the people at the top because, look, statistically, at all the money they are getting. This assumes the money went directly into their pockets and just stayed there. Chairman Greenspan surprised the Senator by giving a different answer. He said: There is no question that in this time of prosperity, in this time of boom, in this time when things are going well, the people who are benefiting the most are the people at the bottom. They can find jobs because the money is there investing in new business, the money is there investing in new opportunities, and jobs are available. They do not depend on welfare checks anymore because they can earn money for themselves. The greatest welfare benefit we can give anybody is a job. If the economy starts to slow down, who will get hurt the most? We have seen it. The people at the bottom. Yes, we need to do unemployment insurance, and we did. Yes, we need to do things to take care of them temporarily, and we have. But ultimately the best thing we can do for them is to get the economy growing again at the kind of rates we experienced after the Reagan tax cut in the early eighties and that we experienced in the tech boom in the midnineties. If we can get the economy growing in that direction again, the people at the bottom will benefit far more than if we take a shortsighted 1- year focus attempt to redistribute wealth. That is why the Bush proposal is a serious proposal. Should it be changed? I do not know. Should it be debated and challenged? Absolutely. Should we be prepared to make changes if, during that debate and challenge, we decide something else needs to be done? Of course. But should it be dismissed out of hand just because it is long-term in its view and replaced with a short-term, stopgap ``let's take care of this year and not worry about the future'' sort of plan? If we were to do that, Mr. President, who would get hurt the most? And the answer, of course, is the people at the bottom. If we were to take the principles laid out by the Democratic leader as our guiding principles in economic policy, the people at the bottom would be the ones who would suffer. The best thing we can do for them, the best thing we can do for our children, the best thing we can do for our Government is to see to it that the entire economy grows in a strong, long-term, stable fashion. That is the principle that has guided the Bush team in their proposal, and that is the principle that should guide the Congress as it debates and analyzes that proposal. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 20 minutes.