Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I join with the distinguished Senators from Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in introducing a bill which addresses an injustice that has developed out of current law. Under current law, meat and poultry products that are processed in plants which are inspected by State departments of agriculture are not allowed to be shipped over State lines. This restriction is an unfair restraint on competition which is especially discriminatory toward small processing facilities. State inspection programs are required to maintain standards are ``at least equal to'' federal inspection standards. The U.S. Department of Agriculture periodically recertifies that State programs continue to meet that standard. meeting an ``equal to'' standard is the same requirement that foreign meat processors must meet in order to sell their product within U.S. borders. Not allowing State inspected facilities the freedom to sell their product throughout the country after having met the same standard that allows their foreign competitors to market their product unimpeded is, quite simply, unfair. This arbitrary restriction has been troublesome to me ever since I was Secretary of Agriculture for Kansas. I've seen firsthand that this restriction impedes competition. In fact, I would like to insert in the Record a letter that I received from a professional in the State of Kansas who operates a State inspected plant. My constituent presents a credible case for why her business is limited because of the restriction on interstate shipment. Proprietors of State-inspected plants are not the only advocates of changing the law. USDA's packer concentration panel recommended an immediate repeal of this prohibition as a way to slow packer concentration. The National Association of State Department of Agriculture, which represents the Secretaries and Commissioners of Agriculture which have responsibility for overseeing State programs, strongly endorses the repeal of interstate shipment restrictions. Based on public comment solicited in the Federal Register and public hearings that were held throughout the country, the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced its support of lifting the ban on interstate shipment. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue of food safety in relation to my proposal. Food safety is paramount. This measure would not in any way undermine the consumer's access to a reliable and safe product. However, this bill is not about food safety. Rather, this bill addresses an issue of commerce and trade. In other words, food safety is an issue of enforcing the inspection standards that are in place, whether under State or Federal oversight. If State-inspected meat is safe to be distributed in Kansas, it is safe to be shipped to Missouri, or Oklahoma, or wherever else an entrepreneur finds a customer. Conversely, if the food is not safe to be shipped over State lines, it shouldn't be distributed with the State either. And, as both State and federally inspected plants implement the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system, we can be even more assured that plants throughout the country are conforming to a uniformly high set of standards. Now, more than ever, a focus on who does the inspecting has no relevance in determining where the product can be consumed safely. I would like to highlight the paper that the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently released in support of allowing the interstate shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry products. In this paper, the administration states its concept for legislative action and establishes certain recommendations for what that legislation should include. I believe that there is much common ground between the Secretary's guidelines and the bill that my colleagues and I are introducing today. I look forward to working with the USDA, as well as my colleagues here in the Senate, in order to pass and implement this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding. I want to express my appreciation and congratulations to the conferees on the bill and what they put together. Overall, it is a good bill. There is a provision in this that I disagree with, and I will join my colleague from Minnesota in voting and stating my position against this bill because it does contain the COLA for Members of Congress. That amendment was offered by myself and the senior Senator from Minnesota and was a bipartisan amendment which prohibited the Congress from receiving a cost-of-living adjustment in fiscal year 1998. Mr. President, I strongly believe that Congress should not receive a COLA until we balance the budget. The Senator from Minnesota and I have different reasons for doing this but the same objective, which is to object to the COLA for Members of Congress. I note, as well, that Members of Congress have not received a COLA for several years to date. I have been involved in those fights when I was in the House. The problem for me is that I think while we are moving to balance the budget and we are asking everyone to sacrifice in getting that done, that we should not be receiving a COLA during that period of time. While we have passed legislation to balance the budget, we are not quite there yet. But we are close. Mr. President, it has never been my purpose in this debate to cast aspersions upon any of my colleagues or the institution of the Congress. I have great respect for the Senate and the people with whom I have the privilege to serve--all of the people in the Senate and all the people in this body. But I continue to believe that we should not receive a COLA while we are still running deficits. We should lead by example and not raise our COLA while we are still getting the Government's fiscal house in order. Therefore, I oppose this conference report and call on my colleagues to do the same. I believe this is the kind of leadership that is necessary to finish the work of balancing the budget and beginning to pay down our massive public debt. I think our children deserve no less. For that reason, I do oppose overall the conference report. For that reason, even though I think it has many, many, very good features and I congratulate my colleagues for putting it together, I cannot support the COLA at this point in time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I say to the Senator from Colorado he has been a leader in this effort on Members of Congress not receiving a COLA, and did put this in the bill that came from the Senate. That was the Senate provision, that there would not be a COLA for Members of Congress. That was the Senate provision. It was the House that put in otherwise. I recognize the work that the Senator has done, and I appreciate that very much. I also recognize the totality of the bill and the excellent qualities within it. I just want to note that because it had that provision I could not support it, but by no means question you or other Members of the Senate. Our provision did not have the COLA in it.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee for including the Brownback-Lieberman-Coats D.C. charter school amendment in the manager's amendment. I am also pleased that our amendment has bipartisan support. These charter school provisions are critical to ensure the success of charter schools in the District. Here in the Nation's Capital, unfortunately, the progress of creating charter schools has been slow. Legislation to create charter schools in the District was enacted in the last Congress but the District currently only has two charter schools. I, along with the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Lieberman, had the opportunity to visit one of these charter schools. The Options Public Charter School, which is just a few blocks from Capitol Hill, is the perfect example of the innovative approach charter schools bring to public education. It enrolls about 100 of the D.C. public schools most at-risk students, grades 5 to 8, and works closely with each student. As a result of this charter school education, the high school graduation rate for the Options Public Charter School is 75 percent compared to the approximate 50 percent graduation rate in the D.C. public schools. To make sure the D.C. public charter school system follows the success of the Options Public Charter School and continues to grow, I, along with Senator Lieberman and Senator Coats offered an amendment to expand funding for the D.C. public charter schools from $1,235,000 to $3,376,000 to ensure that current and future charter schools have adequate funding. In fiscal year 1998, the District of Columbia could have as many as 20 new charter schools. The $1.2 million appropriation is based on the budget of the two current charter schools. This amendment would also make sure there is sufficient funding for current public schools which would like to convert to a charter school. Our amendment would also require the D.C. education emergency board of trustees to report to Congress on their implementation of policy providing preference to new charter schools for surplus D.C. public school property. It would also establish a revolving fund for D.C. charter schools for funds not spent by May 1, 1997. Under the current legislation, any remaining funds for charter schools must go into the D.C. general fund by May 1, 1997. This provision in the amendment would simply make sure that any funds appropriated for the D.C. charter schools will only be spent on the D.C. charter schools. In addition, the D.C. education emergency board of trustees would be required to report to Congress on the capital needs of each charter school within 120 days of enactment and to take all possible steps to provide assistance in capital costs for charter schools in the meantime. I am pleased that our amendment is included in the manager's amendment and has the support of our Democratic colleagues. The charter school application process is underway in the District and new charter schools could begin to operate as early as January. Out goal is to make the Nation's Capital a shining city for the world to follow. One of the key elements of achieving this goal is to provide high quality education for the District's children. Charter schools in the District will inject accountability into D.C. public education, more options for parents and, most important, high quality education to the District's children.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on two bills that I have introduced aimed at limiting the size of Government and restricting its growth. One reduces the Federal Government by restricting the ability of Congress to spend money, and the other limits Government by sunsetting the Internal Revenue Code. First, I will discuss the Economic Growth and Debt Burden Reduction Act. Although I have only been in Congress a short time, I have reached an inescapable conclusion, and that is that Congress is much better at exercising fiscal recklessness than fiscal restraint. Accordingly, I have authored legislation that specifically restricts Congress' ability to embark on spending sprees by making it illegal to use excess Government revenues for anything other than debt reduction or tax cuts. Congress has historically been wholly unable to exercise fiscal restraints when given resources in excess of the current demands of the Government. I believe we need to limit the size of the Government, and this bill forces it to do so. Mr. President, we are going to soon approach a historic opportunity. For the first time since 1969 we are going to balance the budget. It was the last time we actually had revenues and expenditures equivalent. Now is the time for us to begin this great national debate as to, once you go into balance and you start moving into surplus, how should those surpluses be spent. In other words, whenever revenues exceed expenditures, what should they be spent upon. We can say go on another spending spree and spend more money, or we can pay the debt down, or we can say we will cut taxes further on an American public that is taxed too heavily. The bill that I put forward puts it this way: If revenues are projected to exceed the agreement levels, those excess revenues are immediately captured and reserved for tax cuts. If tax cutting legislation is not enacted, the additional revenues revert to deficit or debt reduction. This prevents any unanticipated revenues from being plowed back into higher expenditures and higher spending. And it seems to me that is what the American public wants us to be. They want us to pay down this massive $5.4 trillion debt --and we get from deficit into debt, start paying the debt down --and if we can't agree on cutting taxes further, then we can apply that immediately and require that it go toward the debt reduction. So we can reduce the mortgage on America, which is on our children. They are going to have to reduce the overall tax burden in this country today, which is about 38 percent of the average two-wage earner, two-child family--a 38-percent tax rate. That is at all levels of government, including Federal, State, and local. Sunsetting the Internal Revenue Code Mr. President, the other bill I introduced would sunset the Internal Revenue Code, except for the section relating to Social Security and Medicare. As my colleagues know, last week, the Senate Finance Committee held hearings on the Internal Revenue Service, and during those hearings, the Congress and the American people heard detailed accounts of endless cases of the IRS's abuse of power. I believe the IRS needs to be reformed and, more fundamentally, I believe our Tax Code needs to be changed. The current Tax Code, along with the regulations, consists of more than 10 million words. It is impressive in size and oppressive in operation. It is antigrowth, antifamily, and it is not the sort of environment that we can put forward economically and hope to have the next century be another American century. That is why I have joined with Congressman Paxon on the House side in sponsoring a bill that would sunset the current Internal Revenue code by the end of the year 2000. What we hope to do with this is start the great national debate about what sort of tax system should be in place. Should we go to a flat tax or a consumption-based tax, or truly do tax simplification? But let's set the timeframe and a goal and work toward it like we have done on balancing the budget, when we said that, in 7 years, we would balance the budget and then we will figure out how we are going to get that. That is what we have done and that is why we are going to get it balanced. Let's do the same on fundamental tax reform. Let's set a time certain in which to accomplish it and let's begin the great national debate. I hope a number of my colleagues will join me in sponsoring this effort to sunset this Tax Code and start the next millennium in this Nation with a taxation system that is pro-family, pro-growth and pro- American. We can do that and start this great debate now. I hope my colleagues will join in sponsoring both of those bills. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I note at the outset we should not impose on the children of the District of Columbia what Members of the U.S. Senate are not willing to do. We did a survey of Members of the U.S. Senate to find out how many sent their children to the District of Columbia public schools. Of the 100 Members of the U.S. Senate, we were able to get ahold of 95 offices. We have not found an office yet that sends their children to the District of Columbia public schools. Should we require students whose families do not have the income to be able to either move to other schools or to go to private schools to stay in this public school system? I submit we should not. It is not fair to the kids. Listen to the statistics. These are just the facts. No. 1, 78 percent of the fourth grade students are below basic reading achievement levels in the District of Columbia. I chaired this subcommittee. I have held numerous hearings on this. I have gone to the schools. These are the facts. No. 2, 11 percent of the students in the D.C. public schools have avoided going to school for safety reasons. Fact No. 3, 11 percent of the students in the D.C. public schools report being threatened or injured with a weapon during the past school year. Fact No. 4, this amendment provides low-income students and their parents a choice, a choice they currently do not have under the D.C. public school system. Right now, pupils in the District do not have a choice but to risk their lives and their potential for educational achievement by going to the D.C. public schools. Fact No. 5, General Becton, who heads the reform in the District of Columbia public schools, said, ``Give me to the year 2000. We will fix the schools up by the year 2000.'' And I am behind the General and the work he is trying to do to make these public schools better. But if you are a first grade student that means you are going to be in the first and second and third grade in these schools that have failed the kids. And they have failed the children. Some of them have worked, but overall they have failed the students. They have to learn to read and write and add and subtract during those 3 years. That time is too valuable to condemn those students to that type of situation. It is not fair to the kids. If they had the wherewithal, if they had the income, a number of them would move out to different schools in Maryland or Virginia or to private schools. They don't have the option to be able to do that. This is not fair to the kids, to condemn them to this system. All we are asking is for students below that certain level of poverty, that they be able to have the possibility of doing what most of the Members--in fact all we have been able to find, of the 95 that we surveyed and got ahold of--all of the Members in the U.S. Senate do, and that is send their children to other schools because this system has failed. This system has failed the children, according to the District of Columbia control board itself. This system has failed the children. Let's not condemn that first grader, that second grader, that third grader, not to be able to read or write by not allowing this choice. One of my highest priorities as the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructing, and the District of Columbia, is to make sure the children in the Nation's capital are receiving the quality education they deserve. The District's public schools, unfortunately, have failed too many students. I'm pleased to join Senators Coats, Lieberman, and Landrieu in offering this amendment to empower students and their parents in the District with a choice in their education. I, along with the distinguished ranking member of my subcommittee, Senator Lieberman, have held hearings to explore options to improve public education in the District. I know there are public schools which are working and where students are thriving in their learning environment. I had the privilege to visit two schools in the District: Stuart-Hobson Middle School and Options Public Charter School. I was impressed by the success of their educational programs and how the students took pride in their education. The Options Public Charter School was especially interesting as an example for future charter schools in the District to follow. These schools, unfortunately, are exceptions in the District public school system. The overall facts about the District public schools speak for itself: 78 percent of fourth grade students are below basic reading achievement levels; 11 percent of the D.C. public schools have avoided going to school for safety reasons; and 11 percent of the students report being threatened or injured with a weapon during the past year. We cannot continue to trap these students in an educational system that is failing them. This amendment provides low income students a choice they currently do not have under the D.C. public school system. Right now, pupils in the District do not have a choice but to risk their lives and their potential for educational achievement by going to the D.C. public schools. Right now, students in the District do not have a choice but to go to a D.C. public school knowing the glaring reality that the longer they remain in the D.C. public schools, the less likely they will succeed. The Coats-Lieberman-Brownback-Landrieu amendment would give low-income students and parents the choice to enroll their children in a safe environment with high quality education at a private school. Under this amendment, the parents and the students are empowered with a choice in their education. It is an immediate solution to an immediate crisis in the District. Gen. Julius Becton, chief executive officer and superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools, and the District of Columbia Emergency Transitional School Board of Trustees have said that they will make significant improvements by the year 2000, and I recognize and respect the work that lies ahead of them. But the year 2000 is 3 school years away. In three school years, a child progresses through grades one through three in which they learn to read, write, add, subtract, and so forth. These 3 school years are too valuable to force these students to continue in the public school system that has not delivered. The focus of this amendment is on the low-income student in the D.C. public schools. By providing up to $3,200 in individual scholarships to low-income families who will choose the school for their children, this amendment would give these students the chance to make sure the next three school years do not go to waste while General Becton improves the D.C. public schools. Improving the chances for these children to get the education they need is one of the most fundamental elements to restore the Nation's capital into the shining city the United States deserves. Mr. President, I ask the Members to support the Coats amendment and yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Abraham in introducing the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act. This legislation was completed after months of research and hearings in which we investigated the many costly structural, managerial, and programmatic problems confronting the Department. We have concluded that these problems are so severe and systemic that the department cannot be reinvented. To provide American taxpayers with the services they require at the level of efficiency and quality they demand, the Department of Commerce must be dismantled. The Department of Commerce is a hodgepodge of unrelated functions and missions ranging from antidumping investigations to zebra mussel research. It is comprised of 11 unrelated agencies, overseeing more than 100 programs, catering to more than 1,000 customer bases, and overlapping the work of 71 other Government offices and agencies. This entire agglomeration is unmanageable, and diminishes the quality of those Commerce functions which must be provided by the Federal Government. For example, historically, Secretaries of Commerce have focused their attention almost exclusively on the Department's trade functions. However, trade activities only account for 8 percent of the Department's budget, and Commerce accounts for less than 6 percent of total Federal spending on trade. Commerce is just one of 19 Federal agencies involved in trade issues, and isn't even regarded as the lead trade agency--the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is. However, while Secretaries of Commerce travel abroad on foreign trade missions, serious management problems have languished at Commerce headquarters. For example, in 1992 the General Accounting Office indicated that the National Weather Service modernization program and the Decennial Census--two important functions--were both experiencing severe management failures. Today, 5 years later, both of these programs remain on GAO's list of high-risk government management problems. This year, before the Governmental Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Government Management, which I chair, the Department of Commerce's inspector general testified ``I think it is fair to say that there is little Departmental leadership or oversight in key administrative areas.'' Mr. President, in part as a result of this lack of leadership, the Department has also initiated or continued to perform functions which are not just mismanaged, but are unnecessary. In fact, in many instances, the Department which professes to be the advocate for America's business has gone into competition with them. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Management, representatives from the private mapping, weather forecasting and venture capital industries stated that the Department of Commerce routinely competes with companies in their fields. Because taxpayers unknowingly subsidize the Departments commercial ventures, Commerce is a formidable competitor for small businesses. By going into business, Commerce also misuses taxpayer resources that should be devoted to truly governmental functions. Other functions performed in the Department of Commerce are just a waste of taxpayer dollars. For example, the Advanced Technology Program provides handouts to America's largest and wealthiest corporations to do product development research. This program is corporate welfare, plain and simple, and should be terminated. The Economic Development Administration duplicates the efforts of dozens of other economic development programs around the Federal Government. And finally, the Department of Commerce has become entirely too politicized. Most employees at Commerce are dedicated public servants. However, too many of their leaders obtained their jobs when political connections prevailed over the public good. The Department of Commerce began in 1902 and has evolved over the past 94 years into an agency which has no clear mission or responsibility, and is too unmanageable to reform. I believe the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act is the next necessary step in that evolution. The Commerce Department Dismantling Act would retain the important functions which are performed in Commerce, it consolidates many important functions with those performed elsewhere in the Federal Government, and it eliminates the waste. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Enzi amendment on the temporary moratorium on the expansion of gambling on tribal lands. I will just make a very brief and succinct point. In the last Congress, we passed Public Law 104-169, which established the National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission. It was for the purpose of studying the social and economic impact of gambling and reporting its findings to Congress. I supported that legislation. I thought it was important legislation, particularly since the gambling industry has expanded so much. The industry rakes in $40 billion a year annually in the United States. It operates in 23 States. The amount of money wagered annually in the United States today exceeds $500 billion --half a trillion dollars. There have been a number of questions regarding the industry overall. It just seems to me that what we should do is a logical progression here. We are saying there are a lot of questions regarding the impact of that amount of gambling taking place in the United States, that pervasive amount, that size of money. What we should do now is, let's pause for a moment and let's not expand this any further until we have this Commission reporting back on what the impact is to the United States. There have been lots of allegations of negative impacts of the gambling industry. It is widespread, it is expansive, and it is in many, many areas. Let's let this Commission meet, let's let them make a conclusion, let's let them report to Congress on these items before we expand any further than the $40 billion, 23-State industry that it is today. That is why I think the Senator from Wyoming is bringing up an excellent point in this. Now, I don't want my views to be construed as in opposition to the chance for economically deprived Indian nations to bring needed economic activities to their communities. That is not what this statement is about. I think it is a positive thing that tribes are striving to provide employment and health care and housing and other important services, in light of the position of where they are economically and the difficulty and the needs that they have. This amendment does not ban Indian gaming. It does not affect gaming compacts which are operational or already have been approved. It simply places a temporary prohibition on the Secretary of the Interior to approve any new tribal-State compacts. I think, in light of this, a national commission that has been established, and the questions regarding a societal impact on the overall United States, that this is an appropriate approach. I commend the Senator from Wyoming on this very reasonable approach. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. On that amendment I ask for a rollcall vote.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, very briefly, I don't know about the particular merits of the project. But I do consider the specific earmark for a certain sum of money. If this is going to proceed on the floor, I think we ought to have a rollcall vote on it. So, if it is sought to pass by unanimous consent, I will be objecting to that and ask that we have a rollcall vote on this specific earmark for a certain set amount of money. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is an amendment that basically seeks to preserve tribal Indian land as a cemetery and burial ground in Kansas City, KA. It is a very contentious issue there. But this is and has been an Indian burial ground since 1855. There are plans to put a casino on it now. This is being contested. But clearly the land should remain a tribal ancestral land. We put forth this amendment to do that. I believe we have consent from all sides and all parties for this amendment to be agreed to. I would like to yield to the Senator from Colorado for a brief statement in that regard.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1204.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I urge adoption of the amendment, Mr. President.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Indian Provisions

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will not take too much of the Members' time to discuss this amendment, but I think it is a clear, narrow piece of legislation that is an important one, and what it involves is a particular tract of land in Kansas City that is currently being used by the Kansas Wyandot Indians, which is an informally recognized tribe, as a burial ground. This tribe has used this tract for a number of years as a burial ground. There is a branch of the Wyandot Indians in Oklahoma that is an officially recognized tribe that seeks to acquire this particular tract of land and have a casino on it. Now, setting aside the dispute about which tribe controls this particular tract of land, I just think it is not an appropriate thing for us to approve, or to allow a tribe, this one in Oklahoma, to acquire this land and put a casino on what has been a tribal ancestral burial ground. I think it is sacrilegious for that to occur. It is not that we are saying there are not enough casinos in Kansas City; we have a number of them. That is a side issue as well. What we seek by this amendment is very narrow, and that is that this tract will remain a burial ground and that it will not be used for a casino. We do not seek to mediate the issue of who does the land belong to. We do not seek to establish the Kansas Wyandot tribe as an official tribe. That is not a part of it. We don't seek to recognize the Wyandot Oklahoma Indians' claim to this land. We set all of that aside. This amendment simply says this land should remain an Indian burial ground as it has been for generations and it should not be transferred, it should not be land acquired on which to place a casino. I ask that the Members look at this particular amendment. I am going to call it back up for a vote later on if we do not have consent from all the Members. This land should not be allowed to be used for a casino. It is hallowed ground and it should be allowed as that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1204.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Helms amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. The Helms amendment, which abolishes the National Endowment for the Arts, is the only fiscally responsible approach to the funding of the arts by the Federal Government. The Federal Government truly has to be downsized and more limited. Some on the Senate floor today have argued, and rightfully so, that the National Endowment for the Arts would function much better as a private endowment funded with private dollars, and I agree. We cannot let the Federal Government continue growing unabated, swallowing up the private function of our society as it grows. We have been given stewardship over the public purse, and we cannot abdicate that responsibility just to placate some of the special interests in Washington. We cannot continue wasting taxpayer dollars on the National Endowment for the Arts. NEA funding in this appropriations bill is over $100 million. I support the arts, but the simple truth is our Federal Government is broke. We simply cannot afford to keep on funding art when we are in this type of fiscal condition and when we have other programs that do struggle which we should be funding. Before we vote on this issue, I simply ask my colleagues to consider a simple question. If your family was broke, if they were in a tough financial circumstances, if they were looking at an enormous mortgage on their house, enormous debt that they have, would they be out buying art? The simple answer to that is no, they would not. We are in a similar situation here. We are still struggling to get the budget balanced, and we are going to get there. But once we balance it, we are still over $5 trillion in debt. That is how big the mortgage is on the country. We are talking about a program that I just do not think can justify itself, given the financial conditions that we are in and given the role of a limited and focused Government. I do think we ought to support the arts, and that should be done privately. That can occur and should occur. But when we are in this type of fiscal condition, funding art is clearly not an essential. Subsidizing artistic endeavors, inspiring artists is a worthwhile project but not for the Federal Government. The House has seen the wisdom to abolish this Government program. We should have the wisdom to do the same. In considering this amendment, there are a lot of things that it seems to me the Federal Government could do without--a smaller, better focused Federal Government, a more limited Federal Government--and have a better Federal Government at the end of the day. Here is one clear example. It is one we do not need. It is one we have had extended debate about. It is not as if this is a new topic coming up. It is time to do it, and that is why I am supporting this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am here today to address the resolution introduced in the Senate by the Senator from Oklahoma on Mother Teresa. Last week, we lost a saint when Mother Teresa passed away at age 87. We are poorer, but Heaven is richer. She died owning, as I have read in the news accounts, very few things here. She owned about two pairs of sandals, three robes, rosary beads. That was here. But in Heaven, she has a mountain of gold. She had touched so many different lives on this Earth. It is an incredible definition of a successful life: a loving, caring, compassionate, selfless, child of God, caring for, in many cases, the most downtrodden of God's children. Would that I could live my life as well. I have been struck by some of her writings and things that she has spoken about. They have been accumulated in different books. Some of the statements are absolutely precious. I want to give a couple of them here in the Senate today because I think they are so touching of indicative of what a successful life is. A successful day isn't necessarily when you pass a bill in the Senate, or that you have a successful business transaction, or you pass a test, or you win a game. But a successful day is when you positively touch another life. She did that thousands of times, millions of times, across this globe. She cared for the poorest of the poor. She said this at one point in time: I see God in every human being. When I wash the leper's wounds, I feel I am nursing the Lord himself. Is it not a beautiful experience? Imagine if each of us, every day, if we saw everything that we did as nursing and touching the Lord himself. Here she is talking about caring for the least of God's children in that way, and she sees it as serving the Lord himself. What about us here in the Senate? If we did something similarly, saw ourselves as touching other lives in the most positive way we possibly could, what sort of world would that make? Think of another quote that she gave in one of her speeches where she said this: Our mission is to convey God's love--not a dead God but a living God, a God of love. And then she added: I am just a little pencil in his hand. But what a beautiful picture he drew with that little pencil. What if each of us looked at ourselves as that little pencil, but being used to draw a beautiful picture, a panorama for others to see and to be able to enjoy, and for others to be able to grow by, for others to be able to be loved by that picture that we draw. I have this quote posted in my office, which I think particularly is apropos giving her just passing this week: At the moment of death, we will not be judged by the amount of work we have done, but by the weight of love we have put into our work. You just think about that in measuring each day, not by the success of whether or not we did things like a bill passing through or, again, whether we passed a test, but by the weight of love that we put into our actions and what we actually did that very day and how we touched people. Did we do it in a positive, loving fashion? Would that the world operated that way. My own experiences with Mother Teresa were here in the Senate. The only time that I had a chance to meet her was when she came here and received the congressional gold medal this year. We were all nervous about whether she would actually be able to physically get here because she had been ill, in poor health. She was able to make it here and she shared an hour and a half with us here in the House and in the Senate, in the rotunda area, meeting with different people. I remember so much going through that experience and thinking of reading these quotes, these pearls of wisdom she had laid out on how to live life, thinking she was going to put forward another one that day. I was holding onto each word to see, is there going to be another line like ``I am just a little pencil that you can guide one's life by.'' But it didn't seem to come that day. She would talk about a number of different things, but there, seemingly, were no pearls. Then I remember walking her out to the car, and there were throngs of people excited to see her as she waved and touched different people. The motorcade was waiting to get away. She was sitting in the car, and I went over to thank her one last time for coming in and honoring us by being here and receiving the presentation. She grabbed my hand with both of hers and stared at me with those deep eyes of hers and that little frame that she had, and she looked up at me and just said three words, and she said them four times. She said: All for Jesus. We can all have different faiths and views of the world, but that was a driving focus for her, serving her Lord. How she did it each day is a testimony to each of us of how we should live. We lost a saint, but the tragedy isn't that she died; the tragedy would have been had she never lived. She lived fully and gave us so much in raising our consciousness, lowering our line of sight, and redefining compassion for an entire planet. For that, I thank her and I am thankful for her life. I think we should all consider and contemplate what we can add to our own lives by the model that she gave. So I am delighted to support this resolution of recognition for Mother Teresa for all that she has done for this world and for the example she has lived. I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thought I might put in the Record, and in the resolution there is listed a number of things that Mother Teresa did, but just for the interest of the body, it might be interesting to note some of those things that happened. Mother Teresa expanded her personal dedication by founding the Missionaries of Charity, which people may not be familiar with but I think most are, which included well over 3,000 members of 25 countries who devote their entire lives to serving the poor without accepting any material reward in return. She has been recognized as a humanitarian around the world in various forms: The first Pope John XXIII Peace Prize in 1971; the Jawaharal Nehru Award for International Understanding in 1972; the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979; the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1985; and the Congressional Gold Medal in 1997. She was born in 1910 in the former Yugoslavia, and received a calling on a train saying she should go serve the poorest of the poor, a calling, that was recently just celebrated, of nearly 50 years ago. That is when she went to India to start her Missionaries of Charity. There are a couple of things that also stand out in my mind. When she received the Nobel Peace Prize she refused a dinner, the banquet that they normally put forward for those who receive that, and asked that the cash equivalent instead be used for money to build more missions and help more people instead of having the lavish dinner. I know that in the discussions with her group on the Congressional Gold Medal she suggested that rather than presenting a Congressional Gold Medal to her could they just melt the medal down and give them the equivalent of that in money so they could use that to put up more buildings and help more people of the poorest of the poor. You look at some selfless things like that, and you just become amazed at what she did, and, yet, also what she could accomplish when there is that much selflessness that goes into it. I think one should recognize all of those accomplishments. And those are just the tip of the iceberg because those speak of kind of the big things that we can identify. But they don't speak of the faces that she has stared into, or the feet that she has washed, and the people she served, one at a time. I think that is worthwhile to add into the Record. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 9, 1997, at 10 a.m. in open session, to consider the nomination of Gen. Henry H. Shelton, USA, to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee Special Investigation to meet on Tuesday, September 9, at 10 a.m., for a hearing on campaign financing issues.