Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for bringing this important amendment forward. I state at the outset that I support disaster relief. I think it is important to help those places in our country that are experiencing great difficulty because of a natural disaster that is occurring. We ought to step in. It is important that we do it. But I also think we ought to stop creating and continuing the manmade disaster that we have done here, the $5.4 trillion in debt that is stealing from our children, that is driving interest rates up, that is taking jobs, that is hurting our Nation. It seems that in and of itself is almost a definition of a disaster, and we create it. I think this is an important debate because the point here is not whether we support disaster relief, because we do. We support disaster relief. The question is, do we pay for it and should we be doing that in this overall debate? I do not think we have really looked at this before, even though we have been talking about balancing the budget, now, for a number of years. It seems now we are finally on a track to discuss really balancing the budget. For a lot of years it was just kind of: That is good politics to talk about balancing the budget, but we really cannot do it. Now we are going to do it. Now we are really going to balance the budget. We are actually going to balance the budget by the year 2002, if not before. With this strong economy we could do it by the year 2000. This is for real now. It seems to me, then, as we enter into these debates now about emergency supplementals, helping people out, that we do things for real. One thing that is real to families is that, if you have a disaster personally, you are going to have to figure out some way to pay for it. The same should be true for us. If we have a disaster, we need to figure out how we can pay for it. This is a minimal act. I hope people have focused on what we are talking about. We are talking about 1.9 percent offset against discretionary spending the rest of this year, and then just requiring that the money go against the caps in future years. That is all we are talking about. That is it. It is not talking about cutting disaster relief. It is not talking about: We are going to steal this money out of here and take it out of there; 1.9 percent, 2 percent, and then in the future it is just about being under the budget caps. As we move forward to balance the budget for real we need to move forward and take care of our emergencies for real. This is for real. This makes it real. This allows us to actually do what is real in balancing the budget, so we do not keep driving up this manmade disaster of the $5.4 trillion in debt that we have. I think this is an important debate and I hope Members really search through and think about it. If they really do support balancing the budget, they would really do what is for real here and vote for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain, amendment numbered 107, and state that I am not here to oppose any of the emergency relief being put forward. I think that is important and I think it is appropriate. I also think we ought to pay for it as we go along. We are going to every year somewhere in this country have a disaster. Each year we do this and then we have a disaster and we do not pay for it and it adds to the deficit and we create this mortgage disaster for the country on a long-term basis. We really ought to pay for it. That is another separate debate. I am here to support this issue and this amendment in removing those items that are not emergency appropriations. I do not want to speak about the validity or the need to do any of these specific projects that are in here. I think that can rest for another day. But the question is, are these emergencies or not? Are they things that should appear in an emergency appropriations bill? I think Senator McCain has articulated very well the list that he has put forward in this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that list that Senator McCain has been working on, and we have worked in support of his amendment, to put this in as a part of the Record that these may be good promises.

Mr. BROWNBACK. These projects may be worthwhile. They may be things that we should finance, even though we are over $5.4 trillion in debt. Maybe they are things we need to do, but they are not emergencies. This is an emergency supplemental. We should remove the name ``emergency'' from it if that is the case, and we are just going through on a regular supplemental proceedings bill. I know a lot of people worked very hard in putting these together. At the end of the day, I think as you go down Senator McCain's list and ask, is the $250,000 to replace salmon fry killed during an April snowstorm in New England, is that truly an emergency? Are some of the things he listed, spoke about, truly emergencies? I think one would have to conclude under any reasonable review of those that they are not emergencies. They may be things we ought to do, but they are not things we should do here. They are not things we should do in this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the McCain amendment, to not table this issue, and pull these out and deal with these in the regular process in which they should dealt with. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to give some remarks on an amendment being offered today by myself and by Senator Roberts as well as my colleagues from New Mexico, Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman. This amendment, which is revenue neutral, is critically important to education in the State of Kansas. It should be noted that this amendment does not cost the Federal Government any money. In fact, it simply allows the Department of Education in Kansas to grant deductibility in the school finance formula for impact aid funding. Without this amendment it is likely that the Kansas taxpayers would have to pay an extra $6 million in taxes to fully fund the State's education programs. This amendment corrects for a potentially very expensive technicality. I therefore urge the timely consideration of this very important and time sensitive amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks in morning business. Today, as most people recognize, is a national day for prayer. We have also been talking about a very important thing regarding families and a bill that has been put forward to try to help families be able to do their job better. What I would like to speak about a little bit today is building off of that statement and also off the National Day of Prayer to talk about, overall, the culture of America and what has happened to our Nation, what has happened in our culture. I think it probably would come as no surprise, unfortunately, to most people that our culture is in difficulty and has been having a great deal of problems lately. I have been looking at and studying this issue for some period of time. Plus, as I travel across my State, as I travel across Kansas, I hear more and more people mentioning how much difficulty they think the culture is in, how much they feel like they are fighting culture just to raise their kids and raise their families. I would like to take the Senate's time for just a few minutes to describe where are we today in this culture. Why do we need things like flexibility for families to be able to be families again? Why do we need to do those things? Let us look at some of these charts. I apologize ahead of time for how discouraging they are, because they are. As you look at these things--look at this. This is child abuse and neglect reports in America. We are talking, in 1976, about 500,000 of them, which was a lot at that point in time. But consider where we are today: 3 million in 1995 reported, of child abuse and neglect cases reported on an annual basis, 3 million. That is a high percentage of our children being recorded in this. This is a terrible situation and, unfortunately, an indictment of the culture. Let us look at out-of-wedlock births. This is something that has received a lot of attention overall in our society. Consider where we were in 1960--about 5 percent. And you can go back earlier in time and it stays at about this 3 to 5 percent level. Consider where we are today--30 percent. About one in every three children born in America today is born to a single mom. That is a tough situation. In our inner cities--in the District of Columbia we have here, that figure gets up to nearly 60 to 70 percent. My wife and I have three children. It is tough enough for two of us to raise them, let alone without flexible time to be able to get off from work, and let alone without being born into a situation where you start out with one parent just at the very outset. The next chart, violent crimes taking place in our society. Unfortunately, I think everybody knows the situation here, but look at the staggering numbers--staggering numbers. In 1960, we are talking about violent crime offenses--rape per 100,000, we had about between 100 to 200 per 100,000 citizens in the country in 1960. Look at where we are today. We are up at nearly 800 per 100,000 people. Look at that period of time, 1960 to 1993, 33 years, and we go up nearly sevenfold in violent crimes, sevenfold. My own staff here in Washington, DC, and I have only been here now 4 months, three of them have been burglarized, my own staff here in Washington, DC. This is across the country what is taking place. This is just a horrendous number, if you look at that. Take a look at this. This one is sad, about the hopelessness of some of our kids in this society. Just think about the concept even of a teenager, somebody who is just looking at getting into life and into what should be the flowering, the spring of his or her life, committing suicide; having, actually, the mental thought that I should end this life. To me that is just--it is almost unthinkable, anyway; abhorrent. What has happened in our culture? These are again per 100,000. We used to have about 3 in 1960. We are up to nearly 12; quadrupled in a 35- year time period, of teens being hopeless. How much more do they reflect the rest of teenagers who have thought about this and decide, well, I am not willing to quite take that step? It has quadrupled in 35 years, in the state of our society. What about marriages ending in divorce? Do not hear me to say I am perfect or my family is perfect. We have had divorces in our family, too, just like every family in America. But look at the numbers, because they are staggering; they really are. In 1920, about 10 or 11 percent of marriages ended in divorce. Where are we today? Nearly 50 percent; nearly 50 percent. And it affects all families everywhere. It affects my family, too. Look at that. What does it lead to overall? This is a chart of a Fordham University study on the culture. They have tracked the culture in America since 1970, and they use a whole set of different factors, some of which I would not consider; in others, I would add additional factors. But they overall said the culture, in their objective assessment, has declined from, in 1970, a 73 percent objective number to a 38 percent objective number--in half, the cultural decline in America, in a period--look at the time period we are talking about here--25 years. Is this incredible? I think on our National Day of Prayer we ought to be praying about the culture. And we ought to be thinking about what we can do ourselves and what we can do corporately in this society. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the chairman very much. As I mentioned in our hearing last week, it was noted and pointed out that the Iranians have received chemical weapons, precursor chemical weapons, from the Chinese and from other sources. I have reluctantly but clearly concluded that Iran would be more likely to obtain and use chemical weapons if we enter into this Chemical Weapons Convention with article X in place, which is currently how it sits; that they will be more likely to get and use chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction. Iran is our erstwhile terrorist enemy. I spoke to Colin Powell. He noted that chemical weapons today are the weapons of choice, primarily, for terrorists. These are primarily weapons used by terrorists. That certainly fits the Iranians. So that is why I have, unfortunately, reluctantly yet clearly, decided that with article X in it and with the likelihood of that being used by the Iranians, that this treaty would actually cause more chemical weapons to be used by people that we don't want; by terrorist regimes such as the Iranians. Therefore, I will have to vote against this treaty.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate that. Mr. President, I join with other Senators noting how extremely difficult and important this decision is to vote for treaty ratification. I have taken it very seriously, as well as everybody else. I have read the entire treaty. I sat down and thought it through. I have talked with people. I have talked with President Bush, Bob Dole, Colin Powell, Casper Weinberger, James Schlesinger, Richard Perle, and my 9-year-old son, too, who I think has a stake in this as well. I find it a terribly tough call to make on this treaty; a tough one to be able to decide what is in the best interest and ultimately what will get the fewest chemical weapons used in this world. That to me is the real litmus test issue. What is going to make the world safer is when we are going to have fewer chemical weapons used in the world. I would like to bare to the body that I chair the Middle East Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. We held a hearing just last week on U.S. policy toward Iran. Our policy has failed to stop them from receiving weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical weapons. The Iranians are receiving precursor chemical weapons from the Chinese. May I have an additional minute and a half?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for yielding to me for a few minutes to discuss this critical issue in front of the U.S. Senate, the Chemical Weapons Convention. I would like to state at the very outset of my statement that I would like to be on record that as to the earlier vote we had today of supporting the CWC treaty that came to the floor earlier, that we had an oral vote on, that I support that treaty. I support it. And I will go into the reasons why I supported that and why I will have problems ultimately voting for it if we do not hold tightly to what hit the floor earlier. Mr. President, I just want to talk about this as a couple people would perhaps talk about it if they were sitting somewhere across this country, somewhere in my State of Kansas, and how they look at the Chemical Weapons Convention. I think they would sit down and ask themselves: If we enter into this Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty, will it be less likely for chemical weapons to be used in the world or will it be more likely for chemical weapons to be used in the world? It seems to me that that is the real crucible that we have to decide this under: Is it more likely or less likely if we enter into this treaty? I take this treaty obligation very seriously. I chair the Middle East Subcommittee for Foreign Affairs, the region of the world where perhaps you have the most concentration and the most potentially recent use of chemical weapons happening in a battle situation. This is a very important issue in that region of the world. It is a very important issue in the United States as far as, are we going to be able to rid the world of these terrible, horrible weapons of mass destruction? I take that very seriously. So I have sat and I have visited with a number of people, experts on both sides. On Monday I did maybe an unusual thing for a Senator. I read the treaty. The parts of it I had not read, I have now read the treaty. I need to get on through the attachments, but I have gone through this. I have looked at the arguments. I have looked particularly at the problems. I have looked at the overall good aspects of it, and I want to say that I do strongly support the objectives of the Chemical Weapons Convention. We must oppose the use and existence of chemical weapons. There is just no doubt about it. They are an abomination that needs to be removed from the face of the Earth. We all agree on that. But it is actually for that reason, however, that I have some great difficulties with one particular provision--a number of them within the treaty actually, but one in particular. That is article X of this treaty. It is for that reason, if that is left in this treaty, I do not think that I can support the overall vote, if article X is left in. Let me say why. The Chemical Weapons Convention, if that is left in, I believe will have the exact opposite of the intended effect. And that is, as I said at the outset, are we going to have more chemical weapons used or less? If article X is left in, I fear greatly we are going to have more use of chemical weapons taking place even though the purpose is exactly the opposite. Let me say why. Article X requires nations to share defensive technology regarding chemical weapons. It is something that has been discussed at some length. The particular paragraph reads this way: Each State Party undertakes to facilitate, and shall have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, material and scientific and technological information concerning means of protection against chemical weapons. In other words, we are going to be sharing technology, particularly defensive technology, which is very high technology in many of these areas. I fear that that technology is going to more easily get into the hands of rogue nations, like Iran. I am very concerned about their getting weapons of mass destruction. We had a hearing last week in the Middle East Subcommittee regarding the threat and the expansion of Iran's capacity for mass destruction. The Chinese--and this is unclassified information--have sold precursor chemical weapons to the Iranians. This has in fact occurred. They do not use that without defensive technology to support their own troops, yet this treaty will make the possibility of their getting that defensive technology more likely, if not even ordered within the treaty. You can say, wait a minute. That is just your interpretation. Well, let us look at what Secretary Cheney has said on this, former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, an admirable man, who served in the House of Representatives, also in the administration under President Bush. He says this about this treaty: [the] obligation to share with potential adversaries like Iran, chemical manufacturing technology that can be used for military purposes and chemical defensive equipment, threaten to make this accord worse than having no treaty at all. Then he is joined, of course, as you know, by former Defense Secretaries Schlesinger, Weinberger, Rumsfeld, and others. Now you say, well, this is not going to happen. That is just not going to occur. We are not going to have people selling them this sort of technology, either us or other nations. And maybe we will not do it. But will other nations then step forward and sell this defensive technology? You say no, that will not happen. There have been people already pointing out the fact that actually that has already occurred under some previous treaties--the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty being one where the Russians now cite to us that treaty as a reason for them to sell nuclear production capacity to the Iranians, citing the very treaty we entered into to stop this from taking place and that is used back against this to try to expand. And now the Iranians having this capacity, we are trying to stop this nuclear generator from getting fully online for the Iranians. And the Russians cite a nonproliferation treaty that they have to share this technology with the Iranians. That certainly is not the intent. I am very fearful we will repeat the same mistakes of history here. We have to stop the abomination of chemical weapons. We have to stop it in the United States. We have to stop it in the world. We have to stop the abomination of these weapons of mass destruction, these terrible weapons of mass destruction being used. The way to do that is to have a CWC treaty that actually does it and doesn't spread their use. And striking article X is the way to do that. With that, even though the treaty has a number of other problems, it is supportable. Without that, I actually fear the opposite will occur. And with that I would like to yield back the time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Seven minutes, if I could.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes of the time reserved by the Senator from Wyoming to speak on the issue of taxes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the opportunity to be able to address the American people on a very difficult day. I would like to recognize a couple of things that have been said by previous speakers, to start off with. I congratulate the President on the reduction of the overall deficit that has taken place during the past 4 years, because the deficit has gone down. But what I also want to point out to the American people is there are a couple of ways of doing this. In the first 2 years of President Clinton's time in office, with a Democratic Congress, they did it by raising taxes. In the second 2 years, with a Republican Congress, we lowered the deficit by cutting spending. Now, you can go either way on this; you can raise taxes or cut spending. I happen to believe that, in the long term, when you raise taxes, you are going to cut your revenues and it is going to make things worse. The point of it is, on tax day, we should be talking about the level of taxes; they are too high in this country. The way to reduce the deficit is by cutting spending. That is not the way it was done in the first 2 years--by raising taxes. The second thing I would like to respond to that has been raised by the other side of the aisle is capital gains taxes. That certainly needs to be cut, along with some others, and along with a $500 per child tax credit for working and struggling families. I find it interesting that, as we look forward to working with the issue of Washington, DC, the District of Columbia, and rejuvenating the District of Columbia, a metro area that has great difficulties in this country, one that we have had a lot of problems with which are well known to this Nation--do you know what the other side of the aisle is proposing to rejuvenate Washington, DC? What Eleanor Holmes Norton, along with Jack Kemp, is supporting to rejuvenate Washington, DC? They are proposing a zero capital gains tax rate on real property. Both the left and the progrowth ring on the right in this Congress are proposing zero capital gains for Washington, DC. Why would they do that? If this is such a bad thing to do, why are we doing it to Washington, DC? Because they know it will stimulate growth, hope, and opportunity. That is being put forth by Eleanor Holmes Norton and Jack Kemp. These are things that I think people have to realize. When you make those sorts of cuts, it stimulates the growth overall taking place in the economy. Now, the month of April--particularly April 15--I think serves as a powerful reminder of the size and scope of the Federal Government. Even though America will pay its taxes today, Americans will not be freed from taxation. They will not experience tax freedom day until May 9. Last year, it was May 7. This year, it goes up 2 more days, and it won't be until May 9. In other words, on May 9, ladies and gentlemen, you finally start working for yourself instead of the Government. Up until May 9, you are effectively working for the Government, paying your taxes to carry this huge, large Federal Government that is too big. The issue is not that we should raise taxes to balance the budget; the issue is, we should cut taxes and cut the size, the scope, and the intrusiveness of the Federal Government to liberate the American people. Today, a family of four must send both parents into the workplace to provide for the same standard of living that was once provided by only one parent. Is that a way to support the family across America, that we have to have both parents going out and working just to support the family? Is that a way to have strong families across the country? I don't think it is. Unfortunately, even with both parents working, our families are still often unable to get ahead. Living paycheck to paycheck has been the norm for American families for as long as our Federal Government has grown as large as it as, consuming more and more. Taxes hurt America's families. They punish good investment, they stifle entrepreneurial activity, and they hamper true economic growth. That is why I support a tax limitation amendment and insist that any budget deal must provide for meaningful tax relief. Balancing the budget and cutting taxes are not mutually exclusive goals, as some would have you believe. In fact, balancing America's budget virtually requires that we cut taxes. In the long run, it will be more difficult to balance the budget if we do not shrink the size of our Federal Government with significant tax cuts. And what we are doing today is happening across this country. We have a good economy that is growing strong. We are having an economy that is producing more revenues coming into the Federal Government. We need that to continue to take place if we are going to be able to balance the budget. You need to have growth taking place in the economy. That is the critical nature of cutting taxes. It continues to stimulate growth so we can have those revenues coming in and balance the budget, and it is not enough to just balance the budget. As my good colleague from South Carolina has pointed out, we need to start paying the debt down so that interest levels can go down. The tax limitation amendment is a simple amendment requiring a supermajority in both Houses in order to raise taxes; in other words, more than a majority. You have to have a supermajority. And we should do that so that we don't just shift this Government from being debt financed to being tax financed. We need to be able to, overall, force the Government to be smaller and to live within its means instead of taking more of those means from hard-working American families. Later today the House will vote on the tax limitation amendment. I believe this vote will send a strong message to the American people that the Republicans in the House are committed to truly reducing the tax burden in America. The Senate had an opportunity to unify with the House and show their support for this amendment but balked at the opportunity late last week. I think that is an unfortunate reality that too many people lack the wherewithal to stand up to the tax-and- spending regimes of this Government and say no--just say no--to future tax increases. Because Congress has lacked the will in the past on both sides of the aisle to stand up to a flawed Keynesian economic principle that our Government has used in its fiscal policy, that has hurt economic growth and that has hurt our families. I think what we have to do clearly in the future is we just have to stand up and say no to more big Government programs, to put policies in place that reduce that tax burden, that release the American people, their opportunities, their entrepreneurial spirit, and their families to grow and to prosper. Government must be cut. Taxes must be cut. Mr. President, I want to quote the President of the United States who, a couple of years ago, made a very clear statement to the American people. It was resonating very clearly, which the American people wanted to believe. But they know it is just not true yet. And it may end up being the signature statement of this President. ``The era of big Government is over.'' Well, the era of big Government unfortunately is only over in rhetoric. In practice, it remains, and more is even being proposed by the President. To end the era of big Government, we must end the era of big taxes and a big Tax Code. I want to point out to you, Mr. President, and others about the size of the Tax Code. This is something that Steve Forbes has made us familiar with. But I think it is pretty good on a graphic. Just look at the words that govern our lives and the important documents that have taken place. You can see that they do not necessarily have to be documents with a lot of words to have a great deal of meaning. The Declaration of Independence--1,300 words--which declared our independence and more vision of a National Government. The Holy Bible--773,000 words are in this document that so many people read and go to with reverence. The U.S. Tax Code--this is just the code; this is not the regulations that underpin the code that direct all of our lives. But the Tax Code itself is 2.8 million words. If you add the regulations to it that go forward with setting out what this code actually means and interpreting it, we are up to 10 million words governing our lives. The truth of the matter is, on the Tax Code, not only are taxes too high, but the code is so intrusive anymore that it is more about trying to cause you to do something or your business not to do something rather than being about raising revenue for the Federal Government. The Tax Code is about social engineering out of Washington instead of about what it raises for the Federal Government. You can see that, just by the sheer number of words and the volume of words that are involved in the Tax Code. Mr. President, April 15 is a tough day for a lot of Americans, and people aren't to happy about it. They should not be, because their level of taxes are too high. I have had people call in on radio call-in shows. I had one in Saline, KS, that was so memorable to me. A gentleman called in and he said, ``You know, Mr. Brownback, I believe in serving my country. I have done everything I could to serve my country. I served in the military. I am married. I have two children. I am doing everything I can to work hard. But let me tell you, you guys are just taxing me out of my family's existence. I can't continue to support my family off of what you are taking for taxes. I believe in America and I believe in this country. But I just can't keep carrying this burden. It is too heavy. It is too much. Can you lift it off of me?'' If we will help that man in Saline, KS, he will not only start working harder and earning more and taking care of that family better, which is at the core of the cultural renewal that we need to take place in the family, but he is going to be even more of a patriot if we just release him a little bit instead of requiring him to work until May 9 just to pay his taxes. Let's let him work a little bit more to raise his family. This day should focus on tax policies, on the failings of tax policies across the United States, on what its impact is, and on the theory that if you tax something, you get less of it, and if you subsidize something, you get more of it. We have too much tax which is hurting too many people. It is hurting us in growth. It is hurting families. It is hurting us in the opportunity to create an era after era of big Government. And an era after the era of big Government, I think, is one of an unlimited America. But it is one in which we have to reduce the tax monster to be able to get to that. I am happy to be able to speak about the issue of tax freedom which is not with us yet. But it is a day I hope people will recognize the importance of--of what tax policy has done, how much needs to be changed, and how we need to limit taxation taking place in this Nation. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair. I thank my good colleague from Georgia for yielding time to me. I would also like to thank and recognize and compliment Senator Coverdell, Senator Feinstein, and others who have worked tirelessly on this effort to try to get more help in stopping all the drug trafficking through Mexico. I know they have worked very hard to try to craft a vehicle and language to be able to get at this issue, which we all want to do, which is reduce the drug trafficking, reduce the amount of drug flow from and through Mexico to the United States. I applaud their efforts and their tireless work in getting this done. However, in looking at the language of this bill, I must rise in opposition to certifying Mexico as complying with our drug-trafficking efforts, and this is not, in my estimation, as I consider this vote and weigh it carefully, about bashing Mexico. This is not about bashing the administration. This is about complying with the law and interpretation of that law and a judgment that each of us must make. The fact is section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act requires that the President certify that Mexico has cooperated fully with the United States or taken adequate steps on its own to fight drug trafficking. That is the law, and that is the interpretation and that is what each of us have to interpret, whether this is done: Has Mexico cooperated fully with the United States or taken adequate steps on its own? Sadly, I come to the conclusion the facts are that Mexico has not cooperated fully with the United States and the steps they have taken to combat the drug trade are far from adequate. I am sad in taking that position and in looking at it this way, but I can arrive at no other conclusion. There was a slight increase in 1996 in both drug seizures and arrests of drug traffickers. But sadly, again, this is because the numbers for 1995 were so low. Their record over the 1992 to 1993 period shows that they can do much better; they were much, much higher. So the Mexican Government, working more in cooperation with us, can do much better. In fact, Mexico's current record clearly indicates that they should not be certified for antidrug cooperation. U.S. drug agents report that the situation on the border has never been worse. I applaud Senator Coverdell and Senator Feinstein for laying out in detail the facts that are before us. I would like to reiterate some of them again if I could. Mexico continues to be a major transit point for cocaine entering the United States from South America. Fifty to 70 percent of the cocaine entering the United States transits Mexico, and Mexico is a supplier of 20 to 30 percent of the heroin to the United States market and up to 80 percent of the foreign-grown marijuana. Seizures of cocaine were about the same as the last 2 years but about half the level of seizures in 1991 to 1993. Drug arrests were up for 1995. However, they were considerably less than arrests in 1992 to 1993. Mexico refuses to allow the United States Navy ships patrolling for drug smugglers to put into Mexican ports to refuel without 30 days' notice. Mexico has enacted money laundering legislation, but so far the legislation has not been implemented, and Mexico is 12 months late in producing necessary banking regulations. The record on this issue is clear, and sadly so. It is not credible to claim that Mexico has fully cooperated with the United States in fighting drug trafficking. On the contrary, the major Mexico-based drug cartels have risen to being some of the most powerful trafficking groups in the world. I think we absolutely have to send a strong signal to the administration and to our neighbors to the south that the certification process is not just a rubberstamp exercise and that we require action on this issue. I say again that I arrive at this conclusion sadly because I think everybody in this body would much rather be able to easily certify, and I do applaud the efforts of Senator Coverdell, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hutchison, and many others in working on this. But we are just not there and I cannot support the certification. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator for yielding. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fairness in State Trading Act of 1997. This bill, which is cosponsored by Senators Grassley, Hagel, and Johnson, is a bipartisan approach to addressing the problem faced by U.S. exporters in countries in which state trading enterprises [STE's] dominate the economy. The Fairness in State Trading Act would subject the import activities of STE's to the jurisdiction of section 1106 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, (19 U.S.C. 2905). If this bill passes, the President would have to determine whether the import activities of the state trading enterprises of an applicant to the WTO impede, or are likely to impede, U.S. exports to that country. If the President makes such a determination, the WTO Agreement cannot apply between the United States and that nation until the latter agrees that its STE's will make decisions based exclusively on commercial considerations. The Brownback bill is designed to ensure that the WTO accession protocol agreements of such countries as China, Russia, and the Ukraine include a provision in which these countries specifically agree that their STE's will make purchasing decisions based solely on commercial considerations. This provision is important because these WTO applicants have indicated that they intend to continue to purchase commodities such as wheat, corn, rice, vegetable oils, and sugar exclusively or almost exclusively through STE's. Without a strong commitment from these countries to depoliticize their import practices, the United States would only have recourse to GATT article XVII for questionable activities undertaken by China's STE's. In 1995, the GAO determined that article XVII is an ineffective mechanism for policing the activities of STE's, and that the state trading activities of China, Russia, and the Ukraine present problems that article XVII is not capable of addressing. Weak enforcement of STE activities would enable the STE's of new WTO members to continue to employ a politicized procurement process. Why should the United States be more concerned about the state trading activities of new members of the WTO rather than the activities of current members? Because the state trading activities of current WTO members pale in comparison to the state trading activities of nations such as China, Russia, and the Ukraine. Import decisions must be made on purely commercial considerations. GATT article XVII is not capable of effectively policing the state trading activities of countries accustomed to a command-and-control economic model. Before we apply the WTO Agreement between the United States and these countries, we must ensure that they agree to depoliticize their import practices. Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, and States across the Nation grow the best crops in the world. Exports of these and other U.S. commodities have skyrocketed as tariff and nontariff barriers to these goods have been reduced worldwide. We cannot allow state trading activities to supplant tariff and other nontariff measures as the new barriers to U.S. exports. Let's make sure that U.S. goods can compete on a level playing field in the markets of new members of the WTO before we lock in reductions in our barriers to goods from these countries. Please print statement and bill in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fairness in State Trading Act of 1997. This bill, which is cosponsored by Senators Grassley, Hagel, and Johnson, is a bipartisan approach to addressing the problem faced by U.S. exporters in countries in which state trading enterprises [STE's] dominate the economy. The Fairness in State Trading Act would subject the import activities of STE's to the jurisdiction of section 1106 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, (19 U.S.C. 2905). If this bill passes, the President would have to determine whether the import activities of the state trading enterprises of an applicant to the WTO impede, or are likely to impede, U.S. exports to that country. If the President makes such a determination, the WTO Agreement cannot apply between the United States and that nation until the latter agrees that its STE's will make decisions based exclusively on commercial considerations. The Brownback bill is designed to ensure that the WTO accession protocol agreements of such countries as China, Russia, and the Ukraine include a provision in which these countries specifically agree that their STE's will make purchasing decisions based solely on commercial considerations. This provision is important because these WTO applicants have indicated that they intend to continue to purchase commodities such as wheat, corn, rice, vegetable oils, and sugar exclusively or almost exclusively through STE's. Without a strong commitment from these countries to depoliticize their import practices, the United States would only have recourse to GATT article XVII for questionable activities undertaken by China's STE's. In 1995, the GAO determined that article XVII is an ineffective mechanism for policing the activities of STE's, and that the state trading activities of China, Russia, and the Ukraine present problems that article XVII is not capable of addressing. Weak enforcement of STE activities would enable the STE's of new WTO members to continue to employ a politicized procurement process. Why should the United States be more concerned about the state trading activities of new members of the WTO rather than the activities of current members? Because the state trading activities of current WTO members pale in comparison to the state trading activities of nations such as China, Russia, and the Ukraine. Import decisions must be made on purely commercial considerations. GATT article XVII is not capable of effectively policing the state trading activities of countries accustomed to a command-and-control economic model. Before we apply the WTO Agreement between the United States and these countries, we must ensure that they agree to depoliticize their import practices. Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, and States across the Nation grow the best crops in the world. Exports of these and other U.S. commodities have skyrocketed as tariff and nontariff barriers to these goods have been reduced worldwide. We cannot allow state trading activities to supplant tariff and other nontariff measures as the new barriers to U.S. exports. Let's make sure that U.S. goods can compete on a level playing field in the markets of new members of the WTO before we lock in reductions in our barriers to goods from these countries. Please print statement and bill in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to recognize and congratulate the Senator from Georgia for joining the body. I am joining him on his first maiden speech. I also thank the Senator from West Virginia for educating and sharing with us some of the culture and the history of the U.S. Senate, which I think is always beneficial for us to have and to be able to share with the American people the history, the ability, and the nature of this body as it was set up by the Founding Fathers and which has been maintained with most of its integrity since that time and age of what they set forward. I think it is always positive for us to know the history and the nature and why we serve and how we should serve.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to yield for a minute, if I could please, sir.

Mr. BROWNBACK. They are not overly charitable at all. (The remarks of Mr. Brownback pertaining to the introduction of S. 471 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Just for a brief comment. I have a limited period of time.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to address the body today on legislation that I am introducing, along with Senator Lieberman, Senator DeWine, and Senator Kohl, an act called the Television Improvement Act of 1997. It is my sincere hope that this bill will help solve one of our nation's most troubling problems. I am fresh off the campaign trail, as the Senator from Georgia is fresh off the campaign trail. Throughout the 1996 campaign, I traveled across the State of Kansas and talked with thousands of people. I came away from that experience convinced that the most important task that we as a Nation face today is renewing the American culture. I can recall countless meetings where individuals, particularly parents, would come up to me worried about the future of the American culture, particularly as it affects their children, and they constantly felt they were having to fight the culture to raise their kids. They hearken back to a time when they didn't feel like they were so opposed by the nature of the American culture. They recall a time when the culture was supportive of what they were doing and helped them in raising a good and solid family. They were just pleading for help. ``Help us be able to come to a point where we can effectively raise our children. Don't make us have to constantly fight our culture.'' Hollywood is the center of gravity for the American culture and, increasingly, the world's culture. Hollywood has changed the culture in this country, and, unfortunately, it has led to a decline in our culture. Over the past 15 years, television has made our children think that violence is OK, that sexuality out of wedlock is expected and encouraged, and that criminal activity is OK. Well, these things are not OK, and it's time the industry changed television to make it easier for parents to raise children. The Television Improvement Act of 1997 is intended to encourage the broadcasting industry to make raising children easier. What it intends to do is to allow the broadcast industry--the television, cable, and motion picture industries to enter into, again, a code of conduct comparable to the one they used until 1983. They would once again be able to say that there is a standard below which they will not go, and they can collaborate to establish that standard without running afoul of Federal antitrust laws. Previously, the NAB had a self-imposed code of conduct that governed television content. The code recognized the impact of television on our children as well as the responsibility that broadcasters shared in providing programming that used television's influence carefully. However, in 1983, a Federal district court determined that some of the advertising provisions of the code violated Federal antitrust laws. Although the court did not rule that any of the code's programming standards violated antitrust laws, the NAB decided to stop using the entire code. The past 15 years have demonstrated that the code of conduct is sorely missed. Television has declined over the past 15 years, in no small part due to the absence of the code. I don't think anybody in this body could argue--or in this country who would disagree--that the nature of American television has declined over the past 15 years. Let me read for the body a statement that is from the old code of conduct that the National Association of Broadcasters used until 1983. It sounds almost quaint today. But listen to the content of what the industry itself had before. It says: Above and beyond the requirements of the law, broadcasters must consider the family atmosphere in which many of their programs are viewed. There shall be no graphic portrayal of sexual acts by sight or sound. The portrayal of implied sexual acts must be essential to the plot and presented in a responsible and tasteful manner. I do not think there would be many people today who would say that this reflects the nature of television today. But I think many Americans today would say, ``That is what I want television to be today so I don't have to always fight the TV to raise my kids.'' It is not enough for everybody to say, ``Just turn it off.'' My wife and I are raising three children. It is a little tougher than just saying, ``Turn it off.'' It is about being there all the time. We are trying. One of us is there all the time. It is also not enough to say, ``Well, we have a rating code so you know what is on television.'' We are pleading with the industry, saying, ``Let's go back to that time when you used a code because television was better then and it so directly impacts the culture and the soul of America.'' The average American spends 5 hours a day watching TV. Most would liken it to a stovepipe of black soot going into the mind and into the soul. Why don't we change that back to the way it used to be, and have it as a well of fresh spring water going into the mind and into the soul? The industry is fully capable of doing this. Witness some of the current shows, especially ``Touched by an Angel,'' which is a leading show by CBS today. It is a good, positive, and uplifting show. But, sadly, there are far more that are far more degrading that would lead one more to the stovepipe analogy rather than the fresh spring well water. We are pleading with the industry with this bill. This bill provides no additional authority to the Federal Government; not an ounce of additional authority to the FCC. It is a plea to the industry to help us. We are having trouble. The American family has been under attack. In many places it has disintegrated. In our inner cities we have 70 percent of our children born to single moms. In many places we no longer have families, one of the basic tenets of culture. We are asking by this very simple act and pleading with the industry. ``Let's go back to the time when television did not hurt our lives.'' And we are not suggesting censorship. If we have a better product coming out of this industry, we will have a better American culture. We will have a better world culture because Hollywood is the center of gravity for not only this culture but increasingly the world's culture. It is coming up time and time again. So we are introducing this bill today, a bipartisan bill, requesting that the industry negotiate and work together on a code of conduct the like of which it had before. We will be holding hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee. We have been joined by the chairman and the ranking member of the appropriate Judiciary subcommittee who are cosponsoring this bill. We anticipate that they will have hearings on it as well. It is a follow- on to Senator Simon's work in this area in 1990. We hope that it will be much more successful. If it is not, there will be further action coming to try to address this corrosive effect that, unfortunately, television has on our society and, indeed, on the world. So, Mr. President, we are introducing this bill today asking the industry for help to lead our culture back to a brighter and a better time. They can do it. They are capable of doing it. Mr. President, again, let me say that I am pleased to introduce today with Senators Lieberman, DeWine, and Kohl, the Television Improvement Act of 1997, a bill that I believe will help solve one of our Nation's most troubling problems. Throughout the 1996 campaign, I traveled across the State of Kansas and talked with thousands of people. I came away from that experience with the conclusion that the most important task that we as a nation face today is renewing the American culture. People are desperately worried about the decline of our culture and about the decline of the American family. Many of the parents that I spoke with during the summer and fall believe that they increasingly have to fight their culture to raise their children. These parents feel that American culture in the 1990's actually makes it more difficult to raise children. Hollywood is the center of gravity for the American culture and increasingly the world's culture. Hollywood has changed the culture in this country, and, unfortunately, it has led to a decline in our culture. Over the past 15 years, television has made our children think that violence is OK, that sexuality out of wedlock is expected and encouraged, and that criminal activity is OK. Well, these things are not OK, and it's time the industry changed television to make it easier for parents to raise children. Previously, the National Association of Broadcasters had a self- imposed code of conduct that governed television content. The code recognized the impact of television on our children as well as the responsibility that broadcasters shared in providing programming that used television's influence carefully. However, in 1983, a Federal district court determined that some of the advertising provisions included in the code violated Federal antitrust laws. Although the court did not rule that any of the code's programming standards violated antitrust laws, the NAB decided to stop using the entire code. The past 15 years have demonstrated that the code of conduct is sorely missed. Television has declined over the past 15 years, in no small part due to the absence of the code. For this reason, Senators Lieberman, DeWine, Kohl, and I are introducing this bill to make perfectly clear that the broadcast industry is not violating Federal antitrust laws if its members collaborate on a code of conduct that includes voluntary guidelines intended to alleviate the negative impact that television content has had on our children and to promote educational and otherwise beneficial programming. In drafting this legislation, we have built upon Senator Simon's Television Program Improvement Act of 1990. Unlike that law, however, the Television Improvement Act of 1997 would not include a sunset provision, and we have expanded the scope of the antitrust exemption to enable the industry to tackle such issues as the proliferation of programming that contains sexual content and condones criminal behavior. Senator Lieberman and I plan to hold hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee's Government Management and Restructuring Subcommittee, which I chair and on which Senator Lieberman serves as the ranking Democrat. The hearings will explore the impact that the Federal Government has had on the ability of the television industry to broadcast more inspirational and less harmful programming. We will examine whether the application of Federal antitrust laws to a collaboration by the broadcasters to promote better programming hinders the industry's ability to police itself and has resulted in a decline in television broadcasting. The Federal Government should not be impeding any voluntary effort by the industry to improve the quality of programming; the Government should be encouraging such an effort. Let me just reiterate that we are not calling for a government mandate to be imposed upon the industry, nor are we providing the FCC with an ounce of additional authority with respect to broadcasting. What we are doing is trying to encourage the industry to do what it did prior to 1983--broadcast less programming that harms our kids and more programming that helps us raise our kids. We want Hollywood to start producing, and we want the broadcasters to start airing, better programming. I ask that the bill be appropriately referred.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I introduce a piece of legislation that is being cosponsored by five of my colleagues. This legislation is the Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997. But first of all I would like to recognize the tremendous work of Congressman J.D. Hayworth in pushing this legislation during the last Congress. As leader of the Constitutional Caucus J.D. has worked hard to return to Congress its constitutionally granted authority over the lawmaking process, and it is a privilege to be able to work with him on this legislation during the 105th. Congressman J.D. Hayworth will introduce the Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997 along with 30 of his House colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives later today. I believe the Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997 will provide a powerful tool in returning to Congress the constitutional responsibility it has abdicated for much of this century to unaccountable executive branch bureaucrats. Ultimately this bill is about returning the constitutional responsibility of Congress back to the Congress. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution states, ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.'' I believe that for too long Congress has ignored this provision by purposely writing excessively broad laws that are left not to Congress for interpretation but instead to unaccountable bureaucrats. As it stands now; Congress writes a law, an executive branch agency then interprets the law and promulgates regulations, and then the agency enforces the regulation. The agency in effect becomes both the maker and the enforcer of law. This is wrong. I agree with Madison, who wrote in the Federalist Papers that the consolidation of power into one branch of government is tyrannical. This type of consolidation separates the American people from the process of lawmaking by separating the Congress from the promulgation of rules and regulations. Taxation without representation was the charge levied at the British Government at the birth of our country. I believe a new charge levied at our own Government is regulation without representation. I believe it is a charge that we must answer. The American people have a right to be heard in the lawmaking process; and we have a constitutional responsibility to make the law. Congress cannot and must not continue to carelessly delegate its authority away to executive branch agencies. In fact, it must take back that which it has already given away. We must be responsible. My bill will make us responsible. The Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997 will force Congress to vote on the rules and regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies before the rules and regulations can take effect. Some will argue that this process will place an increased burden on the Congress who, they argue, already has little enough time to consider all the issues that come before it. This is an understandable concern. The obvious answer is that regardless of the time burden it is still our constitutional responsibility to oversee the lawmaking process. But our bill does address some of these concerns. For example, our bill will require Congress to vote on every proposed rule or regulation in an expedited manner, unless a majority of Members vote to send it through the normal legislative process. Under the expedited procedure the majority leader of both Houses, by request, must submit a bill comprised of the text of the regulation for consideration. The bill must then come before the respective Chamber for a vote within 60 days with debate limited to 1 hour and not amendable. If the bill is sent through the normal legislative process it is amendable. If the bill is not introduced the regulation is effectively killed. Congress must act for the regulation to take effect. It is our responsibility to represent our constituents, to create a better Government, and to ensure the integrity of our democracy by always striving to give those who don't have a voice, a voice. It is our duty--it is what we were sent here to do. Constitutional experts from across the country have expressed their strong support for this legislation. Judge Robert Bork and Stephen Breyer have both expressed support for this issue. As well Professor David Schoenbrod at New York Law School and Professor Marci Hamilton at Cardozo have written letters strongly recommending that we adopt this bill and reassert our constitutional responsibility over the creation of laws. KU law professors Henry Butler and Steve McCallister have signed on as well. Professor John Hart Eli of the University of Miami has endorsed this bill as well. This is a bipartisan concept that has, in the past, enjoyed the support of people like Senator Bill Bradley, and Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU. Judge Robert Bork has expressed his support for this concept as well. It is my sincere hope that Congress will act as it ought to act and in so doing pass the Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997 and once and for all return to Congress the authority it should have never given away. I urge speedy consideration of this timely and vitally important piece of legislation.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I introduce a piece of legislation that is being cosponsored by five of my colleagues. This legislation is the Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997. But first of all I would like to recognize the tremendous work of Congressman J.D. Hayworth in pushing this legislation during the last Congress. As leader of the Constitutional Caucus J.D. has worked hard to return to Congress its constitutionally granted authority over the lawmaking process, and it is a privilege to be able to work with him on this legislation during the 105th. Congressman J.D. Hayworth will introduce the Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997 along with 30 of his House colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives later today. I believe the Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997 will provide a powerful tool in returning to Congress the constitutional responsibility it has abdicated for much of this century to unaccountable executive branch bureaucrats. Ultimately this bill is about returning the constitutional responsibility of Congress back to the Congress. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution states, ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.'' I believe that for too long Congress has ignored this provision by purposely writing excessively broad laws that are left not to Congress for interpretation but instead to unaccountable bureaucrats. As it stands now; Congress writes a law, an executive branch agency then interprets the law and promulgates regulations, and then the agency enforces the regulation. The agency in effect becomes both the maker and the enforcer of law. This is wrong. I agree with Madison, who wrote in the Federalist Papers that the consolidation of power into one branch of government is tyrannical. This type of consolidation separates the American people from the process of lawmaking by separating the Congress from the promulgation of rules and regulations. Taxation without representation was the charge levied at the British Government at the birth of our country. I believe a new charge levied at our own Government is regulation without representation. I believe it is a charge that we must answer. The American people have a right to be heard in the lawmaking process; and we have a constitutional responsibility to make the law. Congress cannot and must not continue to carelessly delegate its authority away to executive branch agencies. In fact, it must take back that which it has already given away. We must be responsible. My bill will make us responsible. The Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997 will force Congress to vote on the rules and regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies before the rules and regulations can take effect. Some will argue that this process will place an increased burden on the Congress who, they argue, already has little enough time to consider all the issues that come before it. This is an understandable concern. The obvious answer is that regardless of the time burden it is still our constitutional responsibility to oversee the lawmaking process. But our bill does address some of these concerns. For example, our bill will require Congress to vote on every proposed rule or regulation in an expedited manner, unless a majority of Members vote to send it through the normal legislative process. Under the expedited procedure the majority leader of both Houses, by request, must submit a bill comprised of the text of the regulation for consideration. The bill must then come before the respective Chamber for a vote within 60 days with debate limited to 1 hour and not amendable. If the bill is sent through the normal legislative process it is amendable. If the bill is not introduced the regulation is effectively killed. Congress must act for the regulation to take effect. It is our responsibility to represent our constituents, to create a better Government, and to ensure the integrity of our democracy by always striving to give those who don't have a voice, a voice. It is our duty--it is what we were sent here to do. Constitutional experts from across the country have expressed their strong support for this legislation. Judge Robert Bork and Stephen Breyer have both expressed support for this issue. As well Professor David Schoenbrod at New York Law School and Professor Marci Hamilton at Cardozo have written letters strongly recommending that we adopt this bill and reassert our constitutional responsibility over the creation of laws. KU law professors Henry Butler and Steve McCallister have signed on as well. Professor John Hart Eli of the University of Miami has endorsed this bill as well. This is a bipartisan concept that has, in the past, enjoyed the support of people like Senator Bill Bradley, and Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU. Judge Robert Bork has expressed his support for this concept as well. It is my sincere hope that Congress will act as it ought to act and in so doing pass the Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997 and once and for all return to Congress the authority it should have never given away. I urge speedy consideration of this timely and vitally important piece of legislation.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the era of big Government is over. May it rest in peace. In its place a new era is about to unfold. An unlimited America with a smaller Federal Government, economic opportunity for all, and a renewed culture. An unlimited America was the vision for the Nation set forth by our Founding Fathers. It is the vision enshrined in those two great charters of freedom: our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Many of America's most intractable problems stem from the fact that we've strayed from that vision--and lost direction. But I have no doubt that if we can recapture the Founders's vision of limited Government, personal responsibility, and economic opportunity that America's greatest days will be yet to come. The Founding Fathers of our Nation believed in the people. They created a new nation based on the radical notion that the people could be free and trusted--that the nation would be great if you trusted the people to be good. Before the birth of America, individual rights only existed so far as the grace of the dictator or monarch allowed. They were believed to have a divine right to rule, because it was thought that the people could not be trusted to rule themselves. Our Founders believed that the people had the right to govern themselves--and that government derives its power from the consent of the governed. But this right also imposed a requirement on ``We the People'': We must be a moral and just people. John Adams put it this way, ``Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.'' Yet, today, we have placed the Government in the role that was reserved for citizenship. We have gone from ``We the People'' to They the Bureaucracy. In our recent efforts to create a more perfect union we have relied too much on the Government and too little on ourselves. We have forgotten that self-government demands the habits and virtues required for such a government. ``Republican government,'' James Madison noted, ``presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.'' Yet at some point we decided that goodness for the Nation simply came from the greatness of government. But the greatness of our Nation can never be measured by the size of our GDP or even the strength of our armies. National greatness rises from personal goodness. And that is the starting point for ending the era of big Government and beginning the era of an unlimited America. Our mission is to re- limit the Federal Government; to release economic opportunity for all our citizens; and to renew our families and our culture. In my view these principles are not divisible--if any one is missing, the old era will not give way to the new and America will not return to the straight path--the only path which leads to national greatness. Relimiting Government Fifteen years ago, President Reagan spoke before the British Parliament and made a prediction that shook the world. We were witnessing, he declared, ``a great revolutionary crisis--a crisis where the demands of the economic order are colliding with those of the political order.'' The Soviet Union, which seemed at the height of its power, was running ``against the tide of history by denying freedom and human dignity to its citizens.'' Despite all its tanks and missiles, the Soviet Union would soon be swept aside by the ``march of freedom and democracy''--leaving--``Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history.'' Many of Reagan's listeners thought he was dreaming. But Ronald Reagan had faith in freedom. He knew that communism, though militarily powerful, was ideologically dead. He knew what our founders knew: that in a truly legitimate government, power does not come out of the barrel of a gun, but only from the consent of the people. In a few years the Berlin Wall came tumbling down and the Evil Empire crumbled with a suddenness that astonished supporters of freedom and rocked the world's remaining tyrants. Today big Government is facing the same internal crisis as the Soviet empire was in 1982. Big Government is institutionally strong, but structurally weak. It is backed by armies of special interests that ferociously protect their budgets and intimidate anyone who challenges their subsidies, but it has been abandoned by the American people. Our mission is to implement big Government's replacement--to unite the principles of economic freedom and the cause of cultural renewal to forge a new governing consensus that will lead America into the 21st Century. Conservatives sometimes forget that limiting government is not an end in itself, but a means to a better society. We must remember that our Federal Government has helped America achieve many great things in this century. Along with our allies, we defeated two potentially mortal threats to freedom: fascism in World War II and communism in the cold war. Government built the Interstate Highway System that helped create our modern economy. It established Social Security and Medicare systems which have sharply reduced poverty in old age, and enabled senior citizens to live longer and in better health. Through student loans and the GI bill, it offered educational opportunity to those who might have otherwise been denied. And it enforced civil rights laws in the 1960's when it was clear that State governments could not protect the civil and political liberties of all Americans. But today, America's problems are different. And they require a different response by government. Unlike 50 years ago, our most difficult problems cannot be solved by the benevolent hand of a powerful, centralized bureaucracy. We can still have an effective Government, without a big Government that takes away our freedoms and degrades our values. Unleashing America's Economic Potential As I stated, our mission is to implement the replacement of big Government--to unite the principles of economic freedom and cultural renewal to forge a new governing consensus that will lead America into the 21st century. The principles of economic freedom are the very same principles that will bring forward a renewed culture and a society of limited government. Faith, family, and freedom: these are the values that make both our national economy and our national character strong. When government undermines these values, it hurts our families and our economy. Today, big Government is holding back our economy and preventing our people from reaching their full potential. Perhaps, the most obvious evidence is the fiscal bankruptcy of the Federal Government. Today, we are more than $5.3 trillion in debt--a crushing burden that amounts to over $20,000 for every man woman and child. We are broke. And the budget deficits of today are minor compared with the fiscal disaster that will confront us in the early 21st century when Social Security and Medicare are unable to pay their bills. But huge deficits and skyrocketing debt are just one problem. Americans currently labor under a tax code so complicated that even tax lawyers and accountants can't understand it. We tax personal income two and three times before a citizen can see a return on his work or investment. Our people must work until May 8 just to pay their taxes to the Government before they can earn a penny to support their families. Our Tax Code is one of the greatest remnants of an over-intrusive big Government. It is perhaps the single greatest obstacle to greater individual freedom and prosperity. Ronald Reagan made enormous progress during his presidency, scaling the top rate from 70 percent down to 28 percent. But since then, taxes have gone up-- under both Republican and Democrat presidents The power to levy and collect taxes was meant to fund a constitutional Government, not to become a political device in and of itself. Today, our central Government discourages certain behavior and rewards others based purely on the whims of those who control the tax monster. And as long as the current tax system exists, we will have not met the challenge of replacing big Government and America's potential will never be fully reached. In other examples of big Government, we have over 340 Federal ``economic development'' programs which redistribute capital from productive citizens to bureaucratically-favored entities. Our regulatory state imposes hidden taxes on our families, our businesses and our dreams without truly measuring the consequences and weighing the alternatives. And our political class has become satisfied with expanding our economy at a lethargical pace. Meanwhile, entrepreneurs are being denied capital for their innovative ideas, parents are spending more time at work and less at home, and the American dream is slipping away from more and more families. Many of these barriers are leftover from the great experiment with big Government that is entrenched in our system. Defenders of this system may be winning the battle, but they cannot win this war of ideas. The economic future of our country is inextricably tied to our people. This is why I am optimistic that we will break the bonds that are stifling the innovation and creativity of our people. As this new wave of information technology grows into each household and every new child's mind, the system that relied on Government experts to guide our economy will be washed away in a tide of entrepreneurial capitalism that will make the industrial revolution pale by comparison. Legions of entrepreneurs with innovative ideas, exciting energy and new talents will bring forth the inevitable implosion of today's redistributive and elitist economic policy. And our job as people who love freedom is to do everything we can to help advance this process. Renewing the American Culture We must also not forget that a nation must be full of good people before it can be a great nation. George Washington, in his First Inaugural, said that there is ``no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage.'' As a result, he predicted that ``the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality.'' If this is true--and I believe it is--then certainly the best predictor of future greatness is current goodness. Where are we today on the goodness of the Nation? If we were to measure gross domestic piety in America we would ideally view the nature of each persons heart. Seeing as we cannot measure another's soul, we are left to measure actions and extrapolate from it goodness. The number of crimes committed does tell us something about the soul of the nation. So does the number of abandoned households, the divorce rate, the rate of teenage suicide and abortion. If these are extraordinarily high, can anyone disagree that the goodness of the Nation has declined and its long-term success is in jeopardy? But let me make a bold statement here. America is in ascent again. While I have just spoken about the many terrible and vexing problems of our Nation, this Nation has always shown an ability to deal with its problems once it focuses on what those problems are. I believe today we are focused on the problems of America. We are seeing the limits of Government and the needs of the hearts of our people. Many of our citizens are realizing that in their individual actions--each and every day touching, loving, encouraging, and caring for their fellow man and woman--that they have the power to continue America as a great Nation. A New Governing Consensus Men and women all across this Nation like Pastor Reid are mending America's social fabric by reviving the families, civic organizations, and faith-based institutions that teach character and nurture the soul. They may not all think of themselves as conservatives, but they embody the conservative way of thinking. And they are rediscovering the principles of limited self-government, personal responsibility, and entrepreneurial capitalism that the founders envisioned for America. The restoration of America's civil society has replaced the fight against communism as our central need and our central focus. This need unites libertarians with their emphasis on a free society with cultural conservatives with their emphasis on faith, family, and responsibility with pro-growth Americans who want to free up the genius of the American people through entrepreneurial capitalism. This vision, a vision of freedom, responsibility, and growth can form the core of a new conservative governing consensus. Our cause should be unified, not fractured. Americans of all sorts should work together to restore this common vision of a limited government so we can open markets, free up individual creativity, and above all else, renew the American culture. Indeed, the sum of these goals is essential to the whole of our destiny as a nation. This isn't a utopian fantasy or wishful thinking. Americans and our Government have practiced these principles before, and we will do so again. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited America in the 1830's, he discovered the most democratic, most egalitarian, most religious, most prosperous, and most charitable country on Earth. It was a country of limited national Government, and active citizen participation in local government. Every community had newspapers describing how citizens formed voluntary associations to solve problems instead of expecting them to be solved by politicians. The industrial revolution of the late 19th century and the early 20th century was a time of rapidly growing entrepreneurial capitalism and great personal achievement. It was no coincidence that this period also saw the creation of the Red Cross, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, YMCA's and YWCA's, hundreds of private colleges and universities, and countless other organizations that strengthened character and addressed the problems of their communities. This explosion of community organizations and faith-based institutions coincided with an economic, cultural and moral reawakening that touched America in many ways. As the great scholar James Q. Wilson has written, crime went down in the second half of the 19th century even though this was a period of rapid industrialization and urbanization. The rate of abortions fell in half during this period. Again, government did not create this development, people did. Today there are signs that America is entering another great revival of civic, voluntary activity. In the tradition of Jews, Mormons, and other religious groups with strong charitable traditions, conservative Evangelicals and Catholics run schools for low-income children. They operate maternity homes that give unwed mothers the love and support they need to choose life. They go into our cities' meanest streets and prisons to rescue gang members, drug dealers, and prostitutes from lives of violence, addiction, and desperation. Name a social ill afflicting our cities--poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, illegitimacy--and you will find a self-selected, religiously affiliated program attacking the problem with prayer and sweat and a small army of volunteers. Some scholars say that America is entering a fourth great awakening, a revival of religious faith and fervor. In the American political tradition, freedom and religious revival have always gone together. The first great awakening helped inspire the American Revolution, and religious faith was at the center of the anti-slavery and civil rights movements. And as the call for freedom grows with this revival, we will have the chance to restore an unlimited America where Government will focus on self-limitation, people will focus on self-governing, and our society will grow and prosper both economically and culturally creating an era of an unlimited America. I have no illusions about the problems we face. Ours is the work of generations. But today the American people have a choice to make. We can either continue along the path of administrative, bureaucratic Government and follow the tired mediocrity of big Government, or we can begin the long and difficult task of rebuilding an America that knows no limits. To follow this path we must do two things: First: The creed of America is to be found in the Declaration of Independence, which Jefferson called ``an expression of the American mind.'' We must renew our commitment to these principles, return to our Constitution and reassert ourselves as a free, self-governing people. Second: America has always had within itself a deep source of regeneration. It gains nourishment from its many, varied roots; its history, its religious faith, its free market and its immigrant heritage. And what holds us all together is America's love of liberty, deep in the hearts and minds of the American people. We must renew what Washington called ``the sacred fire of liberty'' and set it ablaze across the land. These are not easy tasks. Yet I remain an optimist for these are powerful forces on the move in our society. I don't know about you, but I have every confidence that Americans will choose the right path for themselves, and for future generations that have yet to enjoy the blessings of freedom. And as we do, we will establish the era of an unlimited America. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I certainly appreciate what the Senator from Pennsylvania was just stating on this very critical issue on partial-birth abortions. It is a sad situation that has occurred in this country. I am hoping that this body and this Nation and this Government can respond to this situation.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair. I appreciate that. I am honored to be able to address this body today once again on the importance of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Balancing the budget is simply no longer an option. The future of our children literally hangs in the balance. Every day we spend debating this issue, we add billions of dollars to the deficit. We have to give ourselves the tools to be able to assure that we can stay in balance. This is an astounding fact, but in the February issue of Nation's Business they state that unless Government spending policies are altered, the average--the average--net tax burden on Americans born between 1960 and 1993 will soar from the current 34 percent to 85 percent of their lifetime incomes. That is 85 percent lifetime income going to taxes. It is thoroughly reprehensible to allow our children to be taxed at this rate simply because we do not have the courage to do what is right. How can we do this to our children? It is imperative that we pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution for the kids. I thank the Chair. I yield back my time.