Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. That's true, they are not getting much more than that. I can tell you the number of poor children in my State is higher by far than the national average. What I am saying is that if you want to address the problems of poor people, go where the poor people are, not where the people are more affluent. That is the reason I object; I object to these staggering sums going to the other States. In 1994, Arkansas had a terrible Medicaid shortage of funds. We could not come up with our matching share to the extent that was necessary to provide health care for all of our poor children. Do you know what the State legislature did under the Governor's leadership? They passed one of the most unpopular taxes you can pass in any State. It was a nickel a bottle on soft drinks, and the money it raised kept us from kicking people out of nursing homes, and it kept us from having poor children on the streets who need health care and are not able to get it. That is the reason I am complaining today. It was a monumental effort on the part of Arkansas to come up with our share of the money so we could take care of our children. So here we have a formula that says in the future you are going to get $390 a year per poor child. And there are 38 additional States that will be hurt by this bill. You would think it would be adopted with flying colors. If I may continue with the article from Mr. Ellwood of the New York Times: Governor Thompson says he can make reform succeed with block grants. But the legislation provides more than three times as much money per poor child in wealthier States like Wisconsin, California, and New York as it does for many States with much higher levels of poverty. Even if they wanted to, there is no way poor States could carry out plans like Governor Thompson's. Here is a man who spent his entire life studying this problem. He closes this article by saying: Welfare politics has turned ugly. Rhetoric has replaced reality: saying a bill is about work or that cuts are in the best interests of children does not make it so. Apparently the legislation is being driven by election-year fears. But Members of Congress and President Clinton need to stand up for our children. This bill should not be passed. If legislation like this is adopted, I hope the President vetoes it in the name of real welfare reform. Mr. President, I spoke about election-year issues the other day in the Energy Committee, on which I sit, when we were dealing with the Boundary Water Canoe Wilderness Area, about 1,100 lakes along the Minnesota-Canadian border. I went out there in 1978 for Wendy Anderson, who was serving in the Senate from the State of Minnesota at the time and with whom I served as Governor. The Boundary Water Canoe Wilderness Area came up the year Wendy was running for re-election. It was a big political issue. Wendy lost his seat, not for that reason only. But he lost plenty of votes because of the Boundary Water Canoe Wilderness Area dispute. Now we have another big Boundary Water Canoe Wilderness Area dispute in Minnesota. I am not taking sides on that necessarily, but there are a lot of ads being run in Minnesota right now. I said in the committee--and I mean it--I will do everything I can to keep a bill of this kind from passing this year, because it is entirely too important for the U.S. Congress to be dealing with in an election year. That is exactly the way I feel about this welfare bill. It ought to be passed next year, not now in an election year where everybody is trying to grow hair on their chest to prove they are tougher on welfare than everyone else. But we are not going to wait. As a consequence, we are getting ready to pass a bad bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article by David T. Ellwood in the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS. They are not going to get very much, but why do you want to lock in an inequity? You say it has always been unequal but want to lock it in?

Mr. BUMPERS. Well, I am sure it is somewhat better.

Mr. BUMPERS. It means that is what they have gotten as an average for 1991 and 1994.

Mr. BUMPERS. I beg your pardon?

Mr. BUMPERS. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the amendment being offered by Senator Graham of Florida and me is the same one we offered last year. It might have a few minor changes in it, but essentially it simply says that the block grant formula in this welfare bill should be changed to take into consideration the number of poor children in each State. I am not very crazy about this bill to begin with, but I cannot possibly vote for a bill that discriminates against the State of Arkansas to the extent this one does. It is not just Arkansas, it is particularly Southern States, but a lot of other States get caught up in it, too. Under the formula, the District of Columbia will get $4,222 for each welfare recipient and the State of Arkansas will get $390. Why is a child in the District of Columbia worth 11 times as much as a poor child in Arkansas? That is a legitimate question, is it not? I will tell you the answer. The answer is, through the years, the Federal Government has matched the States to some percentage or another. It is not the same in every State. For example, in my State, because we are a relatively poor State, we get a big match, I think 73 to 75 percent. So for every dollar we put up, we get about $3 from the Federal Government. The District of Columbia does not do quite as well. But the reason the District of Columbia gets such a staggering amount of money per child is because they have used a tremendous amount of their resources to put into the AFDC Program. That is perfectly laudable and I am not criticizing the District of Columbia. But I will tell you something, and it gives me no joy to say it publicly, I come from a State which has one of the lowest per capita incomes in the Nation. We are a poor State. We have been ever since the War Between the States. We have tried everything in the world and continue to strive to do everything we can to improve the plight of our people. We tried to improve our economy so there would be more jobs and better paying jobs, and in the past several years we have met with some success. But we are not New York, California, or New Jersey in per capita income. The reason this bill is fundamentally flawed and unfair is because it says to you, the State of Arkansas, this is what you have received for the last 3 years, 1991 through 1994, and that is what you are going to continue to receive. In short, if you were poor, no matter how hard you tried to do better under the AFDC program, if you were poor and simply could not do it, it is tough. What does this bill do? It says we are locking you in on the basis of what you got during that 3-year period. I do not care if you had floods, tornadoes, if you had a wave of immigrants move into your State, which brings a lot of poverty to States like Florida, you are still going to get what you got for 3 years, on average. There is a little 2\1/2\ percent ``gimmie'' in the bill, but not enough to amount to anything. One of the things that really is a travesty in this bill is the treatment of AFDC administrative costs. I hate to say these things because I am not jumping on other States. I am simply trying to defend my own. But look what has happened in New York and New Jersey. The nationwide average, in 1994, of administrative costs for administering the program we have now was $53.42. During that same period of time, the average cost of administering the program in New York was $106.68 and in New Jersey $105.26. What do we do under this bill? We lock that administrative cost in and say we will continue to compensate you, no matter how inefficient you may have been. I am sorry the Senator from West Virginia left the floor. The average administrative cost for administering the AFDC Program in West Virginia is $13.34, and that is what they are going to get through the year 2000 if this bill passes, while New York will be receiving eight times as much. We are going to give them that, lock them in, no matter how inefficient they may be in administering the program. One of the interesting things about this bill was pointed out in the New York Times this morning. Let us take my State as an example, and let us assume push comes to shove and we are running out of money, we are suddenly not going to be able to continue. The Federal Government says, ``That's tough, we gave you the block grant, you have to live with it. We do not care how many poor children you have, we are going to give you what you got as an average between 1991 and 1994, and you will live with it. Do not come back up here with your hand out.'' Do you know what they allow the States to do? Kick people off welfare. Each State can make it's work requirements as stringent as they want to make them. What does the Federal Government do in such a case? We do not say, ``If you kick those people off welfare we are going to quit giving you the money for that family.'' We continue to give them the money for the family. So there is an incentive to the States, if they have any difficulty at all with the program, to kick people off, knowing they are going to continue to get the same amount of money. I do not want to take too much time. I know there is not a lot of time between now and 2 o'clock when we go to the agricultural appropriations bill. But one of the most troubling things about this bill, completely aside from this grossly unfair funding formula, is that I have heard people in the U.S. Senate and in Congress say things that are so punitive in nature. It is as though we are passing this bill to punish people for being poor. You can call that bleeding heart liberalism--call it whatever you want to call it. I am not for keeping people on the welfare cycle. I am for reforming welfare, to make jobs a lot more attractive to those people. I am for reforming welfare so women can have day care for their children and get job training and find a job, preferably one that provides health care so we do not have to pay for Medicaid for them. But in the debate, just to use my own State as an example, there is sort of the suggestion that the youngsters, the babies that are born in College Station, AR, which is an unspeakably poor area, have the same opportunities as the children born in Pleasant Valley, our most affluent suburb. And everybody who does not happen to make it as well as the people in Pleasant Valley, somehow or another we seem to think they are lowdown. I said on the floor before and I will say it again, my brother went to Harvard Law School, courtesy of the taxpayers of the United States on the GI bill. We have a little difficult time sometimes discussing these issues, but I remind him that it was more than Harvard Law School that made him successful. I would not be a U.S. Senator if I had not been able to go to a good law school, like Northwestern, also compliments of the U.S. Government, who paid for all of it, except what Betty made working. So I remind my brother about the largess of the Federal Government, which I have been trying to pay back all of my life, by thanking the taxpayers, being a good public servant, and doing my dead-level best to make this a better country for my children and grandchildren to grow up in. But I also remind my brother that we were also fortunate because we chose our parents well. These AFDC children did not choose their parents well. Somehow there is a certain vindictiveness, a punitive aspect to this bill toward those children, a lot of whom are going to suffer under the terms of this bill, and suffer a lot, because they had the temerity not to choose their parents well. So, I do not have any trouble voting against this bill, especially because it discriminates against my State in a totally unacceptable way. I know my State. I was Governor of my State. I know where the money comes from, and I know where it goes. We have areas along the Mississippi River, which we call the delta, and if we are going to pass a bill to alleviate the tax burden on people in the District of Columbia because their people are moving out because of crime or the tax rate or something else, I want to include the delta. I can tell you, you will not find an inner city in America with more deplorable poverty than you will find in the delta of Mississippi and Arkansas. So I want them to have the same break. As I say, if we were not struggling to do the best we can, I would not object. But we do not have the money that New York, New Jersey, California, and other States have to put into this program. It is not just Arkansas. Mr. President, your home State of Florida, as you know all too well without me saying it, will lose $1 billion under this bill. The two Senators from Texas voted against the Graham-Bumpers proposal last year--and I assume they will do it again--and it cost the State of Texas $3 billion. And on it goes. It is a grossly unfair formula. It is indefensible. In this morning's New York Times, my position is vindicated at least by one columnist, David Ellwood, who is professor of public policy at Harvard School of Government. He says, and this is just a portion of it: States would get block grants to use for welfare and work programs. But the grants for child care, job training, workfare, and cash assistance combined would amount to less than $15 per poor child per week in * * * Mississippi and Arkansas. Mr. President, $15 a week for all of those things.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. There is no objection on this side, Mr. President.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would like not to use up all of my time at this point. I would like for the opponents of my amendment to use some time.

Mr. BUMPERS. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Iowa for a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if we could enter into a time agreement on this amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. Parliamentary inquiry. Is that correct, Mr. President?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask further unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments----

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Wisconsin 5 minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will object to adding 3 minutes to my time.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. I made this point a while ago, but charts are always much more graphic. Here is where we are headed. For the people around here who are fiscally responsible and really care about the deficit, this is what is going to happen between now and about the year 2025 or 2030. We are going to spend $70 billion on the F-22 fighter for the Air Force; $66.9 billion for the fighter plane that we have been talking about here, the model E/F of the F-18 Hornet, a very, very fine airplane, indeed. But so are the C/D models that we now use. The Joint Strike Fighter will cost about $219 billion. And then sometime around the year 2010 we are going to start buying the replacement interdiction aircraft whose cost we do not know. The cost in today's 1996 dollars for those three fighter planes is $355.7 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. With inflation at 2.2 percent, that will come to about $500 billion between now and the year 2030, $500 billion. Look at this chart. Here are the military budgets of the United States and our potential enemies. The United States, $269 billion; add NATO to it, $510 billion; Russia, $98 billion; China, $29 billion; and the rogue nations, such as Libya, North Korea, a total of $17 billion. We spend twice as much as all of the rogue nations, Russia and China combined. When you add NATO to it, almost four times as much. This chart shows that today, we have 3,800 fighter aircraft, and they are all so-called fourth generation, the best there is. Look at poor Russia, China, North Korea--not even in the game. Not even in the game. The rogues have only 104 modern fighters divided among them. And we are getting ready to spend $17 billion we should not spend, so says GAO. Here is another chart. In the year 2005, we will have 3,200 fighter planes. Look, 3,200 fighter planes that all of them will either be fourth or fifth generation aircraft. And the rogues will be no better off than they are today. I agree with the Senator from Alaska on this point. He says the C/D fighter plane, the Hornet C/D models are very fine night fighters, they are excellent aircraft. I could not agree with him more. If it were left up to me, that is what we would be buying. But, no, we are going to go spend twice as much, $53 million a copy, on the E/F models which the GAO says is an outrageous waste of the taxpayers' money. Back to my amendment. I am saying you cannot have it both ways. You cannot buy the E/F because it is going to be the hottest thing going and spend $67 billion on it but say we want a few more C/D's at the same time. As a matter of fact, the committee wants 12. Mr. President, the Pentagon did not ask for 12, even the Navy did not ask for 12, and the committee, chaired by the Senator from South Carolina who is sitting on the floor, the Armed Services Committee of the Senate chaired by Senator Thurmond, authorized six, not 12. And the Subcommittee on Defense appropriations, on which I sit, said, ``No, we'll put another six in,'' even though they were not requested nor authorized. It is a paltry $234 million. It will be the only chance you will have of this entire bill to save one single dollar and do it sensibly. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. While we have 30 minutes to debate it, I hope that we can yield back some of the time. Let me start by explaining that Senator Feingold has an amendment that deals with the Navy's plans to purchase the E and F models of the Navy's F-18 fighter, which is called the Super Hornet. Now, the existing C and D models of the F-18 Hornet are the Navy's premier carrier fighter interceptors. The General Accounting Office has just issued a report on the Navy's plans to purchase 640 of the advanced models which are now in development, namely the F-18E and F-18F. That report, which is the most powerful GAO report I have ever read, says that it is the height of foolishness to go forward with the purchase of that many F-18E/Fs. The Navy originally wanted to buy 1,000 of them, 360 of which would go to the Marine Corps. And do you know what the Marine Corps said? ``We don't want them.'' ``We don't want them.'' So that means the Navy is going to buy 640 at a cost of roughly $53 million each. And the GAO says the present C/D models that we are using and could continue to use through the year 2015 will do virtually everything the E/F will do. By buying C/D models, at a cost of $28 million, almost 50 percent less, the Navy would save $17 billion. Now, I tell you those were prefacing remarks because my amendment does not try to eliminate the E/F purchases of the Hornet. I am not trying to eliminate the E/F because Senator Feingold has an amendment he is working on trying to get accepted that would give the Pentagon the opportunity to reconsider its plans to spend $60 billion on the E/F models. It would fence the funds for the E/F until the Pentagon provides Congress with a better justification for its decision. I am a strong proponent of the Feingold amendment; I am a cosponsor. I would have liked to do something stronger, but I know that would not have a chance of winning a vote. The Pentagon took the GAO study, which says you can save $17 billion by buying F-18C/Ds instead of E/Fs, and they tried to refute every single point the GAO said, and the GAO came back and refuted conclusively--conclusively--Mr. President, every single point the Pentagon made in favor of squandering $17 billion on the F-18E/F. Here is my amendment. It is very simple. It cuts $234 million for six F-18C/D aircraft that were not requested by the Pentagon and that were not included in the Defense Authorization Bill. There is, in this bill, one of the strangest things I have ever seen. There is an appropriation for 12 of the C/D models, which the Pentagon says they want to get rid of. What is even stranger is, of the 12, only 6 are authorized; the other 6 are not authorized. The Navy says they want this new, premier, advanced E/F model, not the C/D. So, No. 1, the Pentagon did not ask for them. No. 2, the Senate authorizing committee, chaired by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, with the ranking member from Georgia, Mr. Nunn, did not authorize them. We just passed the authorizing bill, and there is no authorization for these six airplanes. With the utmost respect to the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee on Defense, my dear friends, they just put six more airplanes in the bill. They cost only $234 million. If you say it real fast, it is just nothing. So I say, if we are going to buy the E/F, why in the world are we going to keep buying C/Ds? And I know that we are going to buy the E/F despite the fact that between now and 2025 we will spend at least $500 million for fighter aircraft. I have been around here 22 years, and I can promise you I can get up on this floor and squeal like a pig under a gate every day and it will not change two votes. You think about it. By the year 2030 we are going to spend $500 billion for the advanced model Hornet and for the Joint Strike Fighter, and for the F-22. So, I wish I could stop the E/F. But I am certain in the knowledge, the certain knowledge, that I would not prevail if I sought to stop the Pentagon from going forward with the E/F. You know, the Senate has only killed one weapon system that I can remember, and I cannot think what that was. We only killed one weapons system since I have been in the Senate. The Pentagon occasionally kills one, and they say, ``We do not want it anymore.'' But a lot of times when they say ``we do not want it,'' we impose it on them anyway. And here is the GAO, which we give hundreds of millions of dollars a year to tell us things, saying you are about to squander $17 billion for nothing, and here I am on the floor of the Senate saying, I know the Senate is going to ignore the advice of the GAO. So I am saying, if we are going to go ahead and buy 640 of these high-priced, $53-million- a-copy fighter planes, for God sakes let us not buy 6 more of the C/D models which are neither requested by the Pentagon nor authorized by the authorizing committee. Mr. President, I hope Senator Nunn would come to the floor and say that he is going to support this amendment because it was not authorized. I have heard him talk a thousand times about how sick he gets of the Senate appropriating money for things that are not authorized. So here is a chance for the Senate to save a paltry $234 million. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. That was certainly my intent, and I believe the intent of the members of the Small Business Committees of both the House and Senate, when we acted on this legislation in 1992. I feel confident that this was the understanding of the other Members of this Chamber, as well. Frankly, to treat these certificates as debt instruments backed by the full faith and credit of the United States is the only way to make this program work. If they were not, the investors would demand a far higher return on their investment because the risk would be significantly higher. And the important aspect of that fact at present is that without this change, the cost of this program to the Federal Government will be substantially more. The consequences of failing to cure the definitional defect are severe. Either future leverage fundings would be impossible, thereby directly ending the program, or the uncertainty surrounding the nature of the certificates would dramatically increase their cost, thereby effectively ending the program in our view. Not only would a valuable program have been killed unnecessarily, but the Government might be liable for unfunded leverage commitments outstanding at this time, perhaps as much as $90 million, and, perhaps, losses of the $565 million in private capital that has been committed to the program to date in reliance on the availability of leverage capital at reasonable rates. For this to happen because of a lack of definitional clarity would be unfortunate indeed.

Mr. BUMPERS. That is correct. And currently the rate is the rate for 10-year Treasury bonds plus approximately 75 basis points.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, last evening more than 200 folks braved the weather to pay tribute to a former Member of this body and a fellow Arkansan, Hattie Caraway Mr. colleague, Senator David Pryor, ably presided over a ceremony dedicating a portrait of Hattie Caraway, the first woman ever to place her name on a ballot and be elected to the Senate. This portrait is the second in the Senate art collection which honors a woman; the first is Pocahontas. Members of the Caraway family, representatives from the Capitol historical and arts communities, congressional staffers, and a number of members of the Arkansas State Society heard Dr. David Malone and Prof. Diane Blair, both authors of books about this Arkansan, extol the many virtues of Hattie Caraway. They heard Senator Strom Thurmond tell of her trailblazing accomplishments and Senator Nancy Kassebaum tell of how the example of Hattie Caraway was an inspiring one to her when she first entertained ideas of seeking a seat in the U.S. Senate. Hattie Ophelia Wyatt Caraway was appointed to the U.S. Senate on November 13, 1931, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of her husband, Thaddeus Caraway. She was subsequently elected in a January 12, 1932, special election to complete the term. She ran for reelection to a full 6-year term later that year. At first, Senator Caraway spoke so infrequently that she became known as ``Silent Hattie.'' As she grew more comfortable in her new role, she emerged as a staunch supporter of the New Deal legislation, seconding the nomination of President Franklin Roosevelt at the 1936 Democratic Convention. Senator Caraway was reelected in 1938. Thus, she served from November 13, 1931, to January 2, 1945. She was the first woman to preside over the Senate--on May 9, 1932--and the first to chair a Senate committee. Hattie died December 21, 1950, and is buried in her hometown, Jonesboro, AR. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to the Hattie Caraway Portrait Committee, so superbly chaired by Mary Ellen Jesson of Fort Smith. Members of the committee, which Senator Pryor and I were proud to appoint to oversee this project--including raising the necessary funds--are: Diane Alderson, Diane Blair, Cassie Brothers, Irma Hunter Brown, Meredith Catlett, Gwen Cupp, Ann Dawson, Dorine Deacon, Mimi Dortch, Jacqueline Douglas, Lib Dunklin, Judy Gaddy, Jane Huffman, Dr. Charlott Jones, Chloe Kirksey, Karen Lackey, Bev Lindsey, Donna Kay Matteson, Susan Mayes, Clarice Miller, Betty Mitchell, Julia Mobley, Nancy Monroe, Sylvia Prewitt, Billie Rutherford, Irene Samuel, and Helen Walton. Betty Bumpers and Barbara Pryor, were honorary co-chairs of the committee and had the honor of initially unveiling the portrait in Little Rock back in April. Supporting the committee in this project were the Arkansas Humanities Council, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Arkansas Community Foundation. Special thanks also go to Thom Hall at the Arkansas Arts Center. I also want to pay tribute to Senate Sergeant at Arms, Howard Greene, Senate Historian Dick Baker, Assistant Senate Historian Jo Quatannens, Senate Registrar Melinda Smith, and Frank Wright, an artist and member of the advisory panel for the Senate Commission on Art, for their support and advice. Kelly Johnston, Secretary of the Senate and executive secretary of the U.S. Senate Commission on Art, and Diane Skvarla, Senate Curator, were the guiding forces behind this project and instrumental in bringing us from initial approval of the project to dedication day. The U.S. Senate Commission on Art selected J.O. Buckley, a Little Rock, AR, artist to paint the portrait. He was selected from among a number of fine Arkansas portraitists. I invite my colleagues to step outside the Senate Chamber and take a look at this magnificent portrait, which hangs at the end of the main corridor. Mr. President, last evening was indeed a proud one for Arkansans as a portrait of one of our State's most famous citizens was added to the prestigious collection of art in these hallowed Halls. Mr. President, I ask that a letter that Bob Nash, Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Personnel, read on behalf of the President last evening, as well as a letter read on behalf of Congresswoman Blanche Lincoln, be included in the Record at this point. The letters follow: The White House, Washington, DC, June 20, 1996. Warm greetings to everyone gathered for the unveiling of the portrait of Senator Hattie Caraway of Arkansas. On August 26, 1920, a new era dawned in America. Recognizing that the right to vote is fundamental to democratic citizenship, suffragists succeeded in empowering women with the political voice that was their due. Elected to her seat in the Senate twelve years later in 1932, Hattie Caraway built on the important progress of the women's movement as America's first elected female senator. Since then, women like Hattie Caraway have carved out for themselves positions of leadership from industry and government to academia and the arts, proving time and again that society benefits immeasurably when all people enjoy equal rights and opportunities. We must continue the progress she made and urge a new generation to follow the heroic example set by Senator Hattie Caraway and so many other pioneering women. As you install Hattie's portrait into the Senate's permanent are collection, let us dedicate ourselves to building on her legacy of opportunity and achievement. Best wishes to all for a memorable event. Bill Clinton.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I was particularly taken by the observation of the Senator from North Dakota about the Gettysburg Address, because Dr. Edward Everett was considered the greatest orator in America. After he spoke for 2, 2\1/2\ hours on a very hot, steamy day, Lincoln found it very difficult to stand up and follow a man of such oratorical skills and national renown. On the train on the way back to Washington, he thought that he had been an abominable failure. He could not imagine people taking his words very seriously after that oration. Of course, the rest is history. But I just want to point out to the Senator from North Dakota that Garry Wills has written a great book, just on the Gettysburg Address, really more than I want to know about the Gettysburg Address, but it is a fabulous book which goes into great detail about the events of that day. I would like to share one final observation--and I know the Senator from North Dakota is as well acquainted with these figures as I am-- when you stop to consider that there have been 83 or 84 resolutions to amend the Constitution introduced in the U.S. Congress since January 1995, 83 proposals by Members of this Congress to tinker with that sacred document. There have been 2,300 proposed constitutional amendments since I came to the Senate. They were like snowflakes falling when I began serving during the days of busing and the segregation fight was still raging. And since the Nation adopted the Constitution, 17,000 have been proposed. I say that to my distinguished colleague to simply point out the contempt with which so many of my colleagues hold that sacred document. Well, I have voted for one constitutional amendment since I came to the Senate 22 years ago. I regret that. But I can tell you, my record will be intact when the roll is called on this amendment. I yield the floor.