Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I do, and I thank the Senator for seeking additional clarification. It is common practice for Senators to assist Interior agencies by bringing particular projects to their attention so that the agencies may have the benefit of evaluating these projects for potential inclusion on the list.

Mr. BYRD. I agree that these are two serious problems. The Yankon Sioux Tribe is struggling to maintain adequate law enforcement services and provide housing for juveniles in the criminal justice system. If additional funds are available through the TPA program, then the tribe is encouraged to identify these requirements as a priority in its allocation of funds.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President. I share the sentiments expressed by the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. BYRD. That is my understanding.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I offer my appreciation as well. As always, the Senator from Washington has been most fair in this deliberation. engineering related services utilized by department of interior agencies

Mr. BYRD. The committee's recommendation does not fund the administration's $963,000 request for the Coal Mine Methane Program under the Fossil Energy account. I believe that the House also declined to fund this program based on the belief that it was a ``new start.''

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Rockefeller and I would like to engage the manager of the Interior Appropriations bill in a brief colloquy.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am in agreement with the subcommittee chairman. Such an arrangement would ensure that any funds not expended for this welfare initiative would be used for other TPA priorities.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Democratic leader clearly understands the difficult problems we face in allocating limited resources for the programs in our jurisdiction that are important for many of the Members of this body. However, we would certainly be willing to work with him during conference to see whether alternative funds might be available.

Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the fiscal constraints facing this bill and the difficult task that our chairman has accomplished in a fair and bipartisan manner. However, I would hope that we could take a second look at this methane recovery program. Mr. President, this program is not a new start as the House committee report suggests. Congress appropriated money specifically for the Coal Mine Methane Program in fiscal year 1995. Some of the funds for this initiative were obligated prior to the rescission bill enacted in 1995. While the Department may have gotten off to a slow start with this program, for the past 18 months it has had five teams under contract to prepare phase II detailed project designs. The original appropriation to initiate these projects has been exhausted, and the funds requested for fiscal year 1988 are necessary to complete the ongoing project designs. I am told that the five teams have provided costsharing in excess of thirty percent. The Department of Energy has indicated that the Coal Mine Methane Program can make a significant contribution to the effort to curtail greenhouse gases and estimates that within five years coal mine methane collection and utilization systems could reduce emissions by an amount equivalent to 5.5 million tons of carbon dioxide [CO2] each year. The Department's research is expected to demonstrate that the private sector can, remarkably, generate profit by utilizing and destroying these waste gases. Given the large, cost-effective and near- term potential of this research, the Department has proposed the Coal Mine Methane program as one of its global climate change research initiatives. As the sponsor of Senate Resolution 98, I am clearly on the record in opposition to any binding international greenhouse gas emissions agreement that would injure the American economy or put us at a competitive disadvantage with any other countries. At the same time, I strongly believe that we in Congress should promote the development and use of technologies that can become economically competitive energy sources and which, at the same time, reduce potential greenhouse gas emissions. The Coal Mine Methane program clearly meets these standards. Turning pollution into useful energy at a competitive price, with no subsidies and no new regulation, can be good for electric consumers, good for the environment and good for America, in general.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I share the Chairman's observations and encourage the National Park Service to continue its support of this effort. blue pike study (Usgs)

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, may we have order in the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I don't yield the floor for that purpose. I yielded for 1 minute. I did not yield for that purpose.

Mr. BYRD. I have cleared this request with the Republican leader. I ask unanimous consent that I may address the Senate for not to exceed 10 minutes following this rollcall vote.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I yield 1 minute for that purpose without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, today marks the 210th anniversary of the most successful political experiment in thousands of years of human history, because on this date in 1787, the United States Constitution was signed by a majority of delegates attending the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This ingenious living document, thoughtfully crafted by our Founding Fathers more than two centuries ago, owes its enduring quality in great measure to one of its most basic, yet most ingenious and revolutionary ideas--namely, that the power and sovereignty of the United States Government ultimately rests in the hands of its citizens. An active and educated citizenry, is therefore an essential component of the constitutional machinery that keeps our Government in tune. A citizen of the United States not only has the right to hold opinions, but he has a duty to work through his elected officials in behalf of those opinions. If the Government is not being run effectively, efficiently, and constitutionally, citizens of the United States have a responsibility to work to correct that course through the exercise of their right to vote. It is not only a right, it is a privilege. In other words, the Government that stands over us is ours to endorse or to change. Unfortunately, however, a recent poll commissioned by the National Constitution Center, an organization established to better educate Americans about the Constitution, reveals that a shocking number of people in this country have virtually no knowledge of what is contained in this vital document, and, thus, have no clue about how it affects their everyday lives. In fact, according to the survey, only 5 percent of Americans could correctly answer 10 rudimentary questions about the Constitution. That is an embarrassingly low percentage. How can citizens be expected to meet their Constitutional responsibilities when they lack even basic knowledge about how our Government operates? While 84 percent of those polled felt that to work as intended, the U.S. Constitutional system depends on an active and informed citizenry, only 58 percent surveyed could name the three branches that comprise our Federal Government--only 58 percent. And, less than half knew how many Members make up the U.S. Senate. These are not difficult questions, but basic knowledge taught to schoolchildren at a young age when I was coming along, and should be taught today to schoolchildren at a very young age. Yet, only 66 percent of those surveyed knew that the first ten amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights--only 66 percent. Some even responded that the first ten amendments to the Constitution are called the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, think of that. I wonder how many listening right now to my voice know how many amendments have been added to the Constitution since 1787. Only 19 percent of those surveyed answered correctly. There have been 27 amendments. The 27 amendments that have been added to the Constitution--which include the first 10 amendments, or the Bill of Rights--reflect the genius that our Founding Fathers demonstrated in the creation of the document, by equipping the document with the inherent flexibility to accommodate the changes of a growing nation. Such flexibility is intended to be part of a continuing process, which gives the Constitution life and relevance to the daily affairs of all Americans. A course of apathy, and an ignorance of our civic responsibilities and rights threatens to completely undermine the democratic principles on which our sacred Republic was founded--the very principles which Americans say they value so highly. If there is anything encouraging to come from the results of the National Constitution Center's poll, perhaps it is that 9 out of 10 people surveyed said that they were proud of the U.S. Constitution. On this anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, I hope that more citizens will demonstrate that pride by taking it upon themselves to learn more about their Constitution and their Government, and teach their children, so that they can adequately perform the responsibilities which were conferred upon them in Philadelphia in 1787 by some of the greatest minds in history. Our first Chief Justice John Marshall once stated ``The people make the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will.'' If that will is motivated mostly by ignorance and misinformation our hard won, sacred freedoms appear to be in grave, grave peril indeed. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the dismal results of the National Constitution Center's poll be placed in the Record at this point. I thank Senators for listening and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I speak today in support of the fiscal year 1998 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. This is a bill that is very important to the continued protection and management of our Nation's natural resources, to our energy future, to the well-being of our Indian population, and to the cultural and historical heritage of our country. I hope the Senate will move quickly in its consideration of this bill. If there are amendments--and I am sure there will be some--I encourage Senators to come to the floor and let us have the debate and then vote on those matters that are controversial. The start of the fiscal year is less than 3 weeks away, and we still face a difficult conference with the House. It has been my high privilege to serve as the ranking member at the side of our very able chairman, the senior Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton]. He is an absolute master of the details of the Interior bill. He is a student, and a good one, of much of the history that we protect in this bill, and he is a very fair arbiter of the competing demands that fall within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. This bill was put together in a very bipartisan manner, and it is responsive to priorities identified by many Senators, by the administration, by the public, and by the agencies that are charged with carrying out the directions provided in the bill. Mr. President, the reach of the programs in the Interior bill is vast, and not much of the funding provided in this bill is spent here in Washington. Rather, the dollars that we are considering today will flow out to more than 370 national park units, over 500 national wildlife refuges, 121 national forests, more than 435 Indian hospitals and clinics, 16 different museums of the Smithsonian Institution, and to countless other locations where the research and technology development supported by this bill occurs. So these funds will reach from the northernmost point in Alaska to the southernmost tip of Florida and from the Outer Banks of North Carolina to the islands in the western Pacific. The extent to which this bill makes its presence known in each State is reflected in the number of requests that Senator Gorton and I receive for project funding each year. While no one receives every item he or she requests, I believe that Senator Gorton has done an excellent job of trying to accommodate high-priority items within the allocation assigned to this subcommittee. This bill contains approximately $13 billion in funding for the base programs, as well as an additional $700 million for priority land acquisitions and exchanges. This bill is at its allocation figure, so any additional funding sought by Senators will need to be offset. Senator Gorton has summarized in a very detailed and clear way the items and the details of the bill thoroughly. So I will not attempt to cover them again. While this bill provides needed resources to address protection of some of our most important national treasures, we still have a long way to go. The National Park Service has a $6 billion maintenance and rehabilitation backlog. The Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Smithsonian, and other agencies also have considerable backlogs. Continued pressures to balance the budget on the back of discretionary spending will further impede our efforts to provide the resources necessary to protect the wonders with which we have been entrusted. For all of the pride that we take in our National Park System, it is also crumbling before us. Visitors flock to these national treasures every year--not only American visitors and their families, but increasingly, visitors from other countries. They come to partake of the historic, the cultural, and the scenic resources that have been so carefully preserved and entrusted to the National Park Service. Mr. President, as a reflection of our infrastructure and restoration projects, this bill takes into account the needs. And as a reflection of the patriotism and commitment to future generations, we should be doing more to preserve and to protect these wondrous resources. Innovative fee structures, enhanced partnership efforts, and expanded use of volunteers--all of which are supported by this bill--are not the sole solution to the needs of our national parks. Rather, we must commit funds to allow major infrastructure and restoration projects to proceed. When the house is crumbling, we must tend to the foundations and not just make minor cosmetic repairs. Lastly, Mr. President, I extend a word of appreciation to the staff that have assisted the chairman and me in our work on this bill. They work as a team, and they serve both of us, as well as the full Senate, in a very effective and dedicated manner. They have taken years to acquire this expertise, and it is a vast benefit to Senators and to the people who research. On the majority side, the staff members, I believe, have already been mentioned by the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, as well as on my side of the aisle, which he kindly referred to. This team works under the tutelage of the staff directors of the full committee--Steve Cortese for the majority and Jim English for the minority. This is a good bill, Mr. President, and I urge the Senate to complete its action promptly. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Dr. Robert M. Simon, on detail from the Department of Energy to my staff, during the pendency of H.R. 2107.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, just as the world was recovering from the shock last week of the sad news about the tragic and untimely death of Princess Diana--including the disturbing discovery that alcohol may have been linked to the crash--it was again rocked by reports of the death of another of its beloved heroines. Mother Teresa, considered by many to be a living saint, died last Friday at the age of 87. Like Princess Diana, who dedicated much of her attention to the needs of the unfortunate, Mother Teresa was a beacon of hope for countless people who were all but abandoned by mainstream society. But, unlike Princess Diana, Mother Teresa chose to highlight the plight of the destitute by becoming destitute herself. Although a physically small woman, Mother Teresa was a colossus of inspiration. She had little more to offer than kindness, faith, and tenacity, but Mother Teresa ably provided the world with much, much more. Mother Teresa embodied hope. She served God by reaching out to the poor. She dedicated her life to humanitarian aid, making personal sacrifices that most of us cannot easily understand. Mother Teresa traveled to areas where most would fear to go; she embraced AIDS patients and lepers, cradled dying babies, and brought a glimmer of hope to the hopeless. She rejected modern-day comforts, and when she left this world she owned little more than her sari and her rosary beads. Mother Teresa's name is recognized throughout the world, and her influence is immeasurable. In 1979, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Earlier this year she was presented the Congressional Medal of Honor. She is one of only five people ever to be awarded honorary citizenship to the United States. Mother Teresa shared her time with some of the world's most impoverished and unfortunate citizens. Her light burned with superhuman brightness to illuminate the darkness in others' lives. Born in 1910 in an Albanian region which later became a part of Yugoslavia, Mother Teresa's father died unexpectedly when she was a young girl, and she first learned to care for others while helping her mother look after her two sisters and others in the community. At the age of 18, she joined the Sisters of Our Lady of Loreto, an active mission in India, and spent two decades with the order, first as a teacher and then as a principal. In 1948, an inner voice told her it was time for a change. Sister Teresa left the convent with the vision of starting her own school, determined to dedicate her life to helping the most forsaken and abandoned. Possessing no capital, she first taught by scratching letters in the dirt with a stick. By 1950, she had established a new religious order, and named it the Missionaries of Charity. The vision that began with a tiny stick drawing on a gritty street, has grown into an assembly of 600 clinics, orphanages, soup kitchens, maternity homes, refugee centers, and havens for the poor, sick, and dying in more than 100 countries. These facilities are staffed by 4,500 nuns, 500 brothers, and thousands of volunteers from around the globe. She refused to accept steady funding or fund-raising money from government, private, or religious institutions, relying instead on her faith in God. Yet, she soothed those in pain and brought smiles to cheerless faces, never forgetting the forgotten. The world is a better place because of the sacrifices she made and the warmth she radiated. Mother Teresa once said, ``To God there is nothing small. The moment we have given it to God, it becomes infinite.'' With her passing, Mother Teresa joins with God's infinity. May her acts of unselfishness and compassion be an inspiration to us all to strive, each in our own way, to make life better for all of those who lives we touch.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Chair please state the question that is now before the Senate on which we are about to vote?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I will vote against tabling the Harkin amendment. It is a good amendment with the worthwhile goal of protecting the health and lives of young Americans. Both the tobacco and alcohol industries have received well-deserved criticism in recent years for a variety of questionable or unsavory practices, including what many of their critics have identified as the use of advertising campaigns specifically intended to entice young people to try, and then become hooked on, their products. In response, the tobacco industry has been attacked at both the State and Federal levels, but, unfortunately, much less attention has been directed toward the alcohol industry. Certainly, tragedies like the recent alcohol-related death of a Louisiana State University student demonstrate that a national effort to save our young people from the destructive forces of alcohol is warranted. This amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill will boost the ability of the States to enforce age and identification requirements for the purchase of cigarettes, but, importantly, at my request, the amendment also addresses the need to shore up the enforcement of checks for the purchase by minors of alcohol. The amendment encourages States to couple their youth-smoking prevention efforts with State laws that prohibit underage drinking. These issues go hand in hand in preventing our youth from using destructive substances. According to statistics from the Federal Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Health Statistics, the three leading causes of death for 15- to 24-year-olds--accidents, homicides, and suicides--often involve the use of alcohol. Efforts to curb the sale of alcohol to minors, therefore, can be expected to yield high payoffs to our society. Under the original amendment, Federal funding was to be used to increase supervision of retailers to ensure that they examine the identifications of customers purchasing tobacco products. But language I added calls for coordinating the oversight of identification checks for alcohol sales along with those tobacco-related programs. It only makes sense that store clerks who are already checking ID's for cigarettes also be checking ID's for alcohol. The exercise is called ``carding,'' checking identification cards to verify that the buyer is not under the legal age. It is such an easy step that can help prevent a teenager from getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car-- ``carding'' for age. Perhaps it would be more aptly described as ``carding for life.'' I hope that this amendment may indeed result in saving lives.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope that the galleries will be cautious. They are our guests, and they should understand that the Senate rules do not allow demonstrations of approval or disapproval.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this reconciliation bill. It hands out tax cuts much like adults dole out candy to pacify rowdy children. The American people are not children, and I believe that we underestimate both the public's eagerness for these cuts and our people's comprehension of our Nation's fiscal situation. Mr. President, this is no criticism of those Senators who worked for the tax cut. I accord to every Senator the right to express his own convictions and his own beliefs. And I respect every Senator's convictions and beliefs. I happen to differ with many of my colleagues in this instance. I just do not think that it is wise to have this tax cut. I differ with this administration in that regard. The American people are not children. I have been in politics more than 51 years, and the easiest vote for me ever to cast is a vote to cut taxes. That doesn't take courage. It doesn't take a brave man to do that. That is easy. Let us first note that the past actions of the Congress in approving the tough deficit reduction measure called OBRA in 1993 is largely responsible for all but erasing the bloated and damaging deficits of the 1980s. That piece of legislation and the steady economic growth we have experienced over the past several years have all but brought us into budget balance. The legislation we passed called OBRA in 1993 and the steady economic growth that we have experienced and are still experiencing are what have brought us into budget balance, almost. Passed without a single Republican vote--not one Senator on that side of the aisle, not one Republican Member of that body on the other side of the Capitol, not one voted for that legislation. Not one. That passed, as I say, only by Democratic vote. Without a single Republican vote, that politically unpopular measure--OBRA 1993--was the castor oil that has mostly cured this Nation's serious bout with red ink disease, and set us on a straight course to budget balance. May I add that this cure has been achieved without the arsenic-laced medication of a balanced budget amendment, which so many in this body had prescribed as the only cure for the ailing patient. They were wrong, and we have turned the corner on our budget woes while at the same time preserving, at least for the moment, the checks and balances so vital to our continued life as a viable republic. But this legislation pending on the Senate floor today threatens to negate our progress and throw the body politic back on the critically ill list. The outyear losses from the tax cuts contained in this bill could propel us backward in time to the irresponsible 1980's. May I note that we are voting on this reconciliation bill without the benefit of the administration's economic assessment of the outyear impact of these tax cuts. We shouldn't have to do that. We are rushing to approve these tax cuts in the misguided belief that the people are clamoring for tax relief, regardless of the consequences for the deficit in future years. Although I applaud the sincerity of those who differ with me, realizing that a tax cut would be part of any deal, who have tried to make those cuts more fair in their distribution, I cannot fathom the justification for supporting this whole package based on the meager benefit that might accrue to the nonwealthy. In my view, those of us charged with the responsibility to govern must take a larger view of our total fiscal policies and remember the lessons of the past two decades. I am one of the miserable few who retains the miserable memory of having voted for the tax cut that Mr. Reagan espoused when he first went into office. I voted for that tax cut, and I have been kicking myself in the rear ever since. I was wrong. That and the massive buildup in national defense and the massive growth of entitlements. These are the things that have brought upon us the ills of today, in large measure. We are only now emerging from the crippling restrictions of a massive deficit, debt which hampered our ability to invest in our Nation's physical infrastructure, to repair roads and bridges, maintain the treasures of our national parks, and provide basic amenities to our people like clean, safe water. There are people in West Virginia who are lacking in that treasure of safe, clean drinking water. There are people in other rural States all over this Nation who need clean, safe water. They don't have it. That same deficit has also prevented investment in our people's abilities through education, training, and health policies. Before we have even paused to experience the sweet liberty of freedom from that crushing burden, we are eagerly engaged in digging our way right back into debt through these massive back-loaded tax cuts. Back loaded. Ah, how sweet it is, to tell the American people, ``We have cut your taxes!'' Nobody likes to vote for a tax increase. I don't like to do that. And there are times when we really need to cut taxes, but this is not the time. Since the budget has not been balanced since 1969, I guess nobody in this town can bear the thought of being in balance. Without the hot breath of the deficit master on our necks each and every working day, we might actually be able to return to a time when we could address some of our real problems in this country. We might even see a little creativity and common sense come out of this city. We might have to learn to plan and to be proactive about our Nation's problems instead of slapping on the green eyeshades every morning and focusing on the comforting familiarity of the deficit devil which has become an all- purpose collective excuse for doing nothing much at all. Before we all break out the champagne bottles and congratulate ourselves on helping the poor, beleaguered population by making the easiest, no-brainer vote in all of politics--the easiest, no-brainer vote in all of politics, a tax cut; how easy; how easy it is--let us sober up for 1 minute and contemplate the obvious fact that one fairly severe recession in the next several years coupled with the impact of these back-loaded tax cuts will throw us right back into the deficit canyon. That is all it will take. Let us further jog our all-too-short memories and recall that the national debt as of July 25 is a whopping $5.28 trillion. Yes. Let's reduce the deficit. But let us put that money on that national debt. Further, I am told that the latest estimate by the Congressional Budget Office and the interest due on that debt for fiscal year 1997 is $358 billion. That is just the interest due on the debt--$358 billion. That is $358 for every minute since the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was born--$358 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. This is not small change, my colleagues. And it seems to me that even using the new, new, new, new math, and without benefit of a hand-held calculator, anyone can see that we cannot prudently afford this tax cut. So I am critical--yes--of the Republican Party for advocating this tax cut. I am critical--yes--of this administration and this White House, of my own political party, for advocating a tax cut at this time. It is pandering to the American people. It is pure political demagoguery. That is what it is, pure and simple. Additionally, any informed observer of our Nation's demographic trends can easily see that a low birth rate in our Nation's large and aging baby-boom generation are fusing a fiscal time bomb steadily ticking along on its inevitable course which will detonate in the second decade of the next century. The second decade of the next century. But who cares? Many of those of us who vote for this tax cut today will not be here. We will not be around. Some of us will be in our rocking chairs, enjoying retirement. Do not count me in that crowd. We will not be to blame. Who will be around to blame us? That time bomb could lead to a mushroom cloud, a mushroom cloud that spreads over the country, a cloud of returned budget deficits if we do not think of ways to responsibly sap its destructive potential. Mr. President, simply put, our Nation does not need and can ill- afford tax cuts at this time--not the tax cuts that are included in this reconciliation bill, not the tax cuts promulgated in recent years as a result of the so-called Contract With America. I did not sign on to that contract, the Contract With America. We do not hear much about that contract these days, not much anymore. I never signed on to that contract. Here is my ``Contract with America,'' the Constitution of the United States. Hallelujah! No signed contract for me. I signed the oath to uphold and defend this Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is my contract. But not any tax cut. Such tax cuts threaten to enlarge the deficit right at the time we are close to erasing it. Then we are going to bloat it again, going to blow it up again. More importantly, tax cuts of the sort being considered today could mushroom the deficit in the outyears, precisely at the time when our Nation will be graying. See, I once upon a time had black hair, black as a raven's wing. Not anymore. I went through a graying process. And today my hair has turned not to silver but to the 79th wintry snow--I should say 80 in November. But precisely at the time when our Nation will be graying, and slowly moving closer to the detonation of that time bomb, the explosion of retiring baby boomers that threatens to implode our Nation's fiscal house. There can be no argument, as there was in the early 1980's, that these cuts are needed for economic growth. That was the argument they used back in the early 1980's. We had a new President. His name was Ronald Reagan. My people said, ``Give him a chance.'' They wrote me letters and postcards and said, ``Give him a chance.'' Well, against my own better judgment, I voted for his tax cut. In those days, we could argue that the cuts were needed for economic growth. That is one of the arguments Mr. Reagan so well used. We are currently in our sixth consecutive year of economic growth, the stock market continues to reach record high after record high after record high. They wonder how much higher it can go. It became 4,000, and then it became 5,000, and then it became 6,000, then it became 7,000, then it became 8,000. How much higher can it go? I could have become a rich man, perhaps, if I had known how to play the stock market. But I am one who remembers the stock market crash in 1929, so I have been afraid, afraid of that market ever since. Unemployment recently dipped below 5 percent. Think of it! And inflation has remained in check. The stock market has risen into the stratosphere, beyond the opening in the ozone layer. Does this sound like an economy that needs a jump-start through a tax cut? We were on the right track in 1993. That was the right track. We don't need this tax cut now. To provide a tax cut now is like encouraging someone who has just paid off a huge credit card debt, complete with whopping interest payments to go on a wild and uncontrollable shopping spree. Where is the learning curve? Where is the learning curve? Mr. President, it appears to this Senator that the justifications for the tax cuts contained in the pending legislation do not extend beyond the realm of pure unadulterated politics, pure unadulterated politics. Tax cuts are now, as they have been in the past, the easiest vote a Member of this body could ever make--easiest vote. Tax cuts sell well on the campaign trail. They make even rubber chicken taste good. They seem to magnetically draw checkbooks out of our coat pockets, but in our current fiscal situation they do not represent sound fiscal policy. Tax cuts are not in the best interests of our Nation at this time. I cannot state that strongly enough. To fully prepare for the budget pressures of the next century, we will need fiscal discipline as never before envisaged. We will need budget surpluses, not a teetering see- saw of a balance weakened by looming, back-loaded tax cuts whose costs continue to escalate and whose effect will be to tilt the see-saw back toward deficit spending. We will need to make many difficult decisions with regard to Federal entitlement spending. In short, Mr. President, we will need compromise on many fronts of our budget debate. However, if we are to be truly faithful to the principles of fiscal order and balanced budgets, and if we are going to be mindful of the America that we leave to our children--we hear so much about our children--if we are truly mindful of the America that we leave to our children and to our grandchildren, there is no place, no place for tax cuts in any compromise proposal at this time. Mr. President, I yield the floor.