Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. I commend him for his forthright statement. This is going to be a very important debate, in effect, for everybody in America, I believe for the better if we can keep it on that plane. I certainly look forward to Senator Domenici's opening statement, and I will follow with my budget statement after Senator Domenici.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in the past few years, this Chamber has been the [[Page S6859]] scene of historic debates on major issues of our time. In January 1991, we spoke of war and peace as we gave our approval to the use of military force against Saddam Hussein. Last summer, over the course of several weeks, we conducted a nationwide seminar on health care as we discussed President Clinton's proposal to turn our health care system over to the Federal Government. In my view, both of these debates brought out the best in the Senate and both captured the attention of the country. It is my hope today that America is watching and listening very carefully because I believe that no debate is more important to our Nation's future than the one that began today in the Senate and the one that began yesterday in the House of Representatives. I believe that no votes we cast will make more of a difference to our children and our grandchildren than the ones coming and the ones we will make in the next few days. The Senate and our country is fortunate this debate will be led by the Senator from New Mexico. No Senator has spoken with more courage and more conviction on budgetary issues than Senator Domenici. All Senators can probably find something in the Senate Budget Committee's proposal that we would change. For example, I will say right up front I believe that while we balance the budget, we can also provide America's families with tax relief and our business communities with incentives to invest and create more jobs. But no Senator can disagree with the historic nature of the Budget Committee's proposal or with the fact that Senator Domenici's leadership has truly transformed this debate. To some, it may seem the debate is all about numbers. And some very big, almost unimaginable numbers will be thrown around in the week ahead. We will hear talk of $200 billion yearly deficits as far as the eye can see, which is what is contained in President Clinton's budget proposal. And we will hear the number $4 trillion again and again and again which is, of course, our national debt--$4 trillion. But I believe the most important number is the one everyone can understand and the one that Senator Domenici mentioned. That number is $18,500. The fact is that every American now owes $18,500 as their share of the national debt. How will Americans pay this bill? It will be paid through fewer jobs and lower wages. It will be paid through higher interest rates when they take out a loan to buy a car or buy a home, and it will be paid through higher taxes. In fact, the Joint Economic Committee estimates all children born this year will pay $187,000 each--every child born this year will pay $187,000 each--in taxes over their lifetime just to pay their share of interest on the debt--just to pay their share of interest on the debt. This is the future that faces our children and grandchildren, and it is a future that is within our power to change. In the final analysis, however, this debate is much, much more than a debate about numbers. It is a debate about people, people we know in our hometowns and our home States, people we know all across America. It is a debate about what kind of people live in America today, and it is a debate about what kind of America we will pass on to the people who live here tomorrow--again, our children and our grandchildren and their children and their grandchildren. In the coming days, America will hear two very distinct and dramatically different viewpoints on these questions. One viewpoint is that of President Clinton and the Clinton administration. Candidate Clinton pledged to balance the budget within 5 years, and President Clinton, in his inaugural address, spoke of ``cutting our massive debt.'' And he also spoke about ``sacrifice.'' In fact, within hours of the President's inauguration, I said, ``I was pleased to hear the President use the word `sacrifice,' a word that strikes fear in the hearts of many in this Chamber. But President Clinton is absolutely right. If we are to put our economic house in order, if we are going to do right by our children and grandchildren, then we must deal with our national debt.'' That is what I said shortly after his inauguration. That was January 20, 1993. But, unfortunately, the President's actions have not matched his words of that day. The President is making no attempt to balance the budget. As we know, his proposed budget would give us $200 billion deficits, and more, as I said earlier, for as far as the eye could see. The President is making no effort to cut our debt. As we know, under his own proposed budget another trillion dollars will have been added to our Nation's debt by 1997, not a balanced budget but another trillion dollars in debt. The President is making no effort to preserve and protect Medicare for our children and grandchildren. He washed his hands of the report of the Medicare board of trustees, which included three members of his Cabinet. This was not Senator Domenici's, or Senator Kyl's, or Senator Grassley's report. This was the board of trustees' and the President's own Cabinet members' report. ``Medicare will be broke within 7 years,'' they said. If that happens, you cannot pay anybody's doctor or hospital bills. I believe we ought to fix it. Senator Domenici will recall that in 1983 we had the same problem with Social Security. That was 12 years ago. Then Ronald Reagan, the Republican President, Speaker O'Neill, a Democrat, and Howard Baker, the majority leader in the Senate, put together a commission. I was honored to be on that commission along with Senator Moynihan, Senator Heinz, and other Members of this body, Members of the House, members in the private sector, and members of organized labor. After weeks and weeks, we put together a rescue package for Social Security. That was in 1983. It was bipartisan. It passed by big margins. So Social Security, as far as I know, according to the trustees, will be in good shape until 2017. That was a 34-year fix. Not bad. We want to do the same in Medicare. That is what is proposed by the Senator from New Mexico. The President called it a gimmick. Well, Speaker O'Neill did not call it a gimmick, Ronald Reagan did not call it a gimmick, and we got the job done. We rescued Social Security from bankruptcy in 1983 in a bipartisan effort in this body and in the other body and in the White House, because the trustees said at the time that it was going to be broke in a very short time. They are saying the same thing today about Medicare. I do not recall then Ronald Reagan or any Democrat, as far as I know, getting up and railing about, ``We are going to destroy Social Security,'' as the Democrats are doing now about Medicare, saying we are going after seniors, because everybody understood what the trustees had told us. If we did not fix it, it was going to go broke. The same is true here. If we do not fix Medicare, it is going to go broke. That is all the Senator from New Mexico and that is all this budget proposes, to fix it. We are not using any Medicare savings for tax cuts for the rich, as I hear all my Democratic friends state. Some of them are rich, come to think of it. Now, the President's administration has apparently concluded Americans are nothing more than a series of special interests who focus on only living for today, uncaring of what will happen tomorrow. But the Senate Budget Committee resolution has a different view of what kind of people Americans are. I have a different view of what kind of people Americans are. Maybe it is because of what I have seen in my lifetime. I have seen Americans risk and lose their lives to protect freedom. I have seen them sacrifice and sacrifice and sacrifice to win the cold war. The words of Winston Churchill to the British people during the dark days of World War II can also be used to describe Americans: We have not journeyed all the way across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies because we are made of sugar candy. I do not believe the American people have come all this way only to allow their country to drown in a sea of red ink. That is what America is all about. That is what the American people are all about. Nobody wants to give up anything, unless we understand how critical it is. So the Budget Committee resolution offers America a liferaft. We offer the American people, regardless of party, regardless of background, wherever they are from, whatever State, a liferaft. It sets a course for a balanced budget by the year 2002. It reverses the tide of half a century of [[Page S6860]] power flowing from our citizens and States to Washington, DC. In effect, it dusts over the 10th amendment, which I carry in my pocket. It is only 28 words in length. It says that the power which is vested in the Federal Government ought to go to the States and to the people. That is what this budget does. That was a radical theory 200 years ago. That is how old the 10th amendment is. It is part of the Bill of Rights and is 28 words in length. You ought to read it. For the last 50 years, the power has been shifting to Washington, and we think it is time to shift it back. We trust our Governors--Democrats and Republicans--in any State of America. We trust our State legislatures. We believe that many times they can make better decisions, because they are closer to the people, than we can here. We do not suggest by that that the Government does not do a lot of good things. The Federal Government does a lot of good things and we understand that. We are going to preserve that. If the past few days are any indication, the President is going to do his level best in the coming weeks to scare the American people, particularly seniors who only have Medicare or Medicaid and Social Security. That may be all the income they have and all of the protection they have. The President is going to try to frighten these people. He is going to try to frighten people with children. He will accuse us of being heartless. He will say we are out to get Social Security and Medicare. But it is off the table here. He will say we are slashing programs that help seniors, the children, and the poor. The liberal media will, of course, report these accusations, and many Americans will be led to believe it. But in the end, I believe there is a weapon stronger than scare tactics, and that weapon is the truth. One thing about the Senator from New Mexico: You can expect the truth from Pete Domenici. He will tell it like it is, even when it hurts. The truth is that this budget does not slash Government spending. It simply slows its rate of growth. It does not slash Government spending. It simply slows the rate of growth. As Senator Domenici said, rather than having Government growing faster than wages and salaries, which has been the case for the last three decades, wages and salaries will now grow faster than Government spending. The truth is that this budget does not touch Social Security. It does not touch Social Security. But that does not mean the President will not say it does not touch Social Security. It does not mean it is not going to be reported that it does, but it does not touch Social Security. I assume the Senator from New Mexico would give a reward if one could find anything that touches Social Security in the budget.

Mr. DOLE. Right. If you find something about Social Security, there may be a reward for you.

Mr. DOLE. It is not a benefit or advantage to seniors. The truth is--and this should all be about the truth, not about what is reported--that this budget will shrink the Federal bureaucracy, beginning right here in Congress, with a 7-year freeze on congressional salaries and a $200 million cut in the legislative branch budget. This reaches out to Americans in need. For example, we will spend $534 billion on Medicaid over the next 5 years, reflecting a 20-percent increase over that period. The truth is that this budget begins the process needed to preserve, improve, and protect Medicare. This budget acknowledges that we must take action to save Medicare by slowing its annual growth rate. But let there be no mistaking about what we are proposing. Let the Senate be very clear about it. Over the next 5 years, we will spend over $1 trillion on Medicare. That is an increase of $178 billion. Let me repeat: We will spend over $1 trillion on Medicare, an increase of $178 billion over what we would have spent if we froze Medicare expenditures at today's level. Despite the overheated rhetoric coming out of the White House, we are not talking about cutting Medicare. Later in the debate I think the Senator from New Mexico will have a very interesting chart that ought to make Senators' eyes pop out. The statement made by President Clinton not long ago. We are not even talking about freezing Medicare. We are simply suggesting we must find ways to slow the rate of growth. Slow the rate of growth. It is not about paying for tax cuts, it is about saving Medicare. This is a fact and that is the truth. I do not care how many people stand on the floor on the other side, and there will be a storm of rhetoric on the other side about cutting Medicare for taxes for the rich. Not true. It is not true. We are trying to save Medicare, just as we saved Social Security in 1983. We will do it. If they want to stand on the sidelines, and the President wants to be a.w.o.l., absent without leadership as he is almost every day, that is all right with us. The American people will remember who was carrying the heavy water up here. As my friend, Senator Gramm says, ``Who was pulling the wagon?'' They are not going to pull any wagons on the other side. We will have to pull the wagon. It will be uphill. It will not be easy. I might add here that the President's rhetoric about Medicare rings especially hollow given the fact that his own health care plan included a $180 billion reduction in Medicare and Medicaid spending. We do not hear much about that on the other side. We do not hear much about that in the White House. In last year's health care bill, it was there--$180 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending reductions. Now, the President said at the time, that is not a reduction. Again, I will leave that up to the Senator from New Mexico to explain at a later time. The fact that Mrs. Clinton said in testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, ``We feel confident * * *. We can reduce the rate of increase in Medicare without undermining quality for Medicare recipients.'' That was not anybody speaking but Mrs. Clinton, who was in charge of the Government-run health care plan advocated by President Clinton. Fortunately, it failed. In her own testimony before the Finance Committee, ``we can reduce the rate of increase in Medicare without undermining quality for Medicare recipients.'' Now, what has happened in a year? Nothing has happened. So if they were right then, and we are right now, I guess we are both right. And the President ought to go back and read his own statements and read statements others in the administration have made. I would take the President's budget rhetoric a little more seriously if he would offer the American people an alternative, besides his status quo proposal that Senator Domenici said even the Washington Post called ``weak and directionless.'' Believe me, that was in the Washington Post, and they do not often criticize Democrats for anything in this town. That was in the Washington Post, believe it or not. Mr. President, we can and must do much more than simply maintain the status quo as the President has proposed. We can and must set the course to a balanced budget. And we can and must reduce the tax burden on America's families. Mr. President, I believe that long after we are gone, future historians will look back at this moment, the rest of this week and part of next week, look back at this debate and say, ``Here's where the course was set. Here's where the dye was cast.'' It is up to Congress to determine what their conclusion will be. Will they conclude that here were the people who blew the last chance to change the status quo? Is that what they will write in 30, 40, 50 years? Or here were the people who ensured that the America of the 21st century would be one of low wages, high taxes, and fewer opportunities? Is that what they will write? Will they look back to 1995 and say, ``Here's where the American dream died, right here, right in this Chamber. Right in this Chamber, because we did not have the courage to do what the American people want us to do, or have the courage to do what we know we should do.'' [[Page S6861]] Are they going to say all those things? Are they going to look back in 10, 20, 30, 40 years and say, ``Here were the men and women of courage. Here were the people who made tough decisions and ensured that America's best days are yet to come. Here were the people who ensured nothing less than the survival of the American dream.'' The choice is ours, and the time is now.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of Senate Resolution 121, a resolution submitted earlier today by Senators Feingold, Kassebaum, Helms, Pell, and Simon, regarding the Angola peace process, that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, and any statements thereon appear at the appropriate place in the Record as though read.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I was just reading a wire story here. I find it hard to believe that the House and Senate have just completed action on a rescission bill which would save about $16.4 billion--actually savings around $9 billion, because of the $16.4 billion there is additional money for disaster assistance in Oklahoma City and other programs. I am a little bit bewildered because the President indicates if we send this bill to him--it will be back from the House this week and we will take it up next week--that he will veto it. I am puzzled because the President has said we ought to reduce spending. So we finally get a little reduction in spending and at his first opportunity, he says: No, no; I am not going to sign it. I am going to veto it. And at the very time he is suggesting that he is not going to do anything on the budget, not going to offer any budget of his own. We will have a vote on the President's budget. He is just going to be a spectator and not participate in trying to reduce the deficit. So it seems to me the President had a golden opportunity here to exercise some leadership and demonstrate to the American people that he wants to reduce Federal spending, but he struck out. He does not want to reduce Federal spending. So what does he do? He tries to blame Republicans. We have cut too many programs or we have done this or done that. It seems to me the President ought to carefully review what he said today and indicate to the Congress that he will sign this rescission package. It is not easy to save money around here. The taxpayers wonder why we do not do more and this is a good example. We have been working on this rescission bill for weeks and weeks and months, in many cases in a bipartisan way, and before it even goes to the President he says he is going to veto it. So I think he has missed a golden opportunity and I know he will try to figure out some way to blame Republicans. But we cut programs that were not high priority and in addition we added spending for the disaster in Oklahoma City and other programs the President had requested. So, Mr. President, if you have an opportunity to look at it one more time, I suggest maybe you might want to reverse your position. Because if you are not willing to even save $9 billion in Federal spending, we are talking about many, many, many, many times that much in the budget resolution we are going to start debating here tomorrow. If this is any indication of the leadership in the White House, it is probably a forgone conclusion that the President will veto anything we send him on the budget process. So I would hope that this is not an indication of the trend. I think they have blown a very good opportunity here to demonstrate to the American people that if they are serious about cutting spending, serious about reining in the Government, serious about cutting back on some of the Federal Government which the American people are tired of paying for, but unfortunately it appears the President of the United States does not want to cut anything--``Don't touch anything, don't do this, or don't do that''--he will sit on the sidelines and he will watch the Republicans as we try to bring the budget into balance between now and the year 2002. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to consideration H.R. 483 under the following time agreement: 1 hour on the bill to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, with one amendment to be offered by Senator Rockefeller relative to Medicare, 1 hour for debate to be equally divided in the usual form, and that no motion to table be in order; further, that following disposition of the Rockefeller amendment, the bill be advanced to third reading and that final passage occur without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. In light of the objection, I move to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 483.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate to my colleagues that there is an effort underway to come to some agreement on H.R. 483, the Medicare Select bill. Hopefully, we can reach an agreement and pass the bill, maybe with one or two agreed upon amendments. If we can do it by voice vote, [[Page S6794]] there would not be any additional votes today. We do not have that agreement yet. As soon as we do, I will notify my colleagues. Senator Chafee has been working with Senator Rockefeller and others. Hopefully, we will be able to advise our colleagues in 10, 20 minutes. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. DOLE. I think everything else that we can take up has been taken up. There is only one nomination on the calendar. There is no other legislation that we can take up at this time. Tomorrow we will start on the budget. I understand the Democrats will have a caucus at 10:30 in the morning and, hopefully, they will allow us to start on the budget at noon tomorrow. Otherwise, we would have to wait until tomorrow evening to start on the budget. There are 50 hours of debate. Of course, it is more than just 50 hours. We did indicate to and promise the President that we would try to complete the antiterrorist legislation before Memorial Day. So we would have to finish the budget by next Wednesday night. I think we will need probably a couple of days on the antiterrorism legislation and then there would be the Memorial Day recess, which could be the last recess of the year, but I hope not. Unless we can work out some accommodation on some of these major bills, the Senate will have no alternative but to stay here for a considerable period of time during what might have been the August recess. If we can start on the budget tomorrow--the House should pass their budget tomorrow. We will start on ours tomorrow and have votes on tomorrow and on Friday and on Monday. If I were Members, I would be back on Monday; if there is ever a Monday on which there will be votes, it will be this Monday on the budget, and on Tuesday and, hopefully, we can complete action on Wednesday. The final legislation would be the antiterrorism legislation. So I suggest that we complete action on this bill, and if we can do it without votes, we will do it. If not, Members should not leave until they have some final notice.

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

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before he Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 9:15 a.m. on Thursday, May 18, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 12 noon, with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each except for the following: Senator Specter, 45 minutes; Senator Thomas, 20 minutes; Senator Dorgan, 20 minutes; Senator Campbell, 15 minutes; Senator Reid, 10 minutes; Senator Santorum, 20 minutes.

Mr. DOLE. I further ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 12 noon tomorrow the Senate begin consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, the concurrent budget resolution.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will begin consideration of the budget resolution tomorrow at noon, so I think Senators can expect rollcall votes throughout the day tomorrow, probably late into the evening, and again on Friday and, as I said earlier, on Monday. Because it is our desire to finish the budget resolution either on late Tuesday or Wednesday. And then if possible, take up the antiterrorism measure before the recess, which begins on Friday of next week. I just urge my colleagues, alert my colleagues there will be votes unless something happens I am not aware of on Friday and on Monday. So, please plan your schedules accordingly.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it has been our hope that we could work out some agreement on H.R. 483, the so-called Medicare Select bill. I know Senator Rockefeller has some concerns about it. What we would like to do is bring the bill up, and if anybody has amendments, they can offer the amendments and see if we cannot complete action. It is a program that expires on June 30. I am not an expert on the program itself. I think Senators Packwood and Chafee will be happy to manage the bill. I will not do that. I would like to ask unanimous consent that we turn to the consideration of H.R. 483, the Medicare Select bill, but I am not going to make that request yet. Is the Senator from West Virginia prepared to object to that?

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senators from Alaska, Senator Murkowski and Senator Stevens for their work on the bill before us today. This bill accomplishes many good things for the State of Alaska and is the culmination of years of work by both these Senators on behalf of their State. I am pleased, after many years of effort, that the restrictions on the export of Alaskan oil will be lifted. This legislation represents an effort to provide for new economic opportunities for the people of Alaska. New job opportunities will be created which will strengthen industries directly and indirectly related to this effort. The bill also provides for a review of the effects of the export sales on consumers, shippers, and other domestic oil producers. We need to continue to look for ways to assist domestic oil production and ensure that our efforts for production only work to benefit consumers and our domestic industry. This legislation shows what can be accomplished when individuals share common goals for a strong economy. In addition, authorization for the sale of the Alaskan Power Administration is a positive step forward for the State of Alaska. I believe there is a need to continue to look at opportunities such as this, where Federal Government activities can be better accomplished on the State, local, or private level. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in support of this legislation. Keeping the alaskan north slope oil ban--U.S. dependence on foreign oil

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, over the past several years the Senate has discussed the issue of interstate trash and has passed two interstate trash bills. The provisions contained within those bills were the result of significant efforts and provided authorization for an integrated approach to interstate trash control. The bill before us today accomplishes similar goals, but also addresses flow control and reinstates the ground water monitoring exemption for small landfills. I commend the efforts of Senator Coats who has worked so hard for the past several years to pass such a bill. Senator Chafee, Senator Smith, and others have all worked extensively on this legislation. I believe the authority granted to Governors provides the right flexibility, with local community participation being an important part of this legislation. While I remain concerned about long term implications of the flow control provisions, I believe the committee sought to achieve a balance that provides security for existing flow control authorities while providing for a competitive marketplace in the future. Public and private authorities need to work together in a free market system to address waste management concerns. Congress should only work to assist these decisions, not impede sound environment practices, by providing flexibility to State and local governments to their waste management needs.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for not to exceed 5 minutes, notwithstanding the previous order.

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it will be my intention momentarily to move to proceed to consideration of S. 395, the Alaska Power Administration bill. I understand there are objections to proceeding to the bill at this time. Therefore, Members should be aware that rollcall votes are possible this morning and throughout the day. Mr. President, I move to proceed to consideration of S. 395, Calendar 111, the Alaska Power Administration bill.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to join today with President Clinton and with all of America in honoring the 157 law enforcement officers who were killed last year in the line of duty. These brave men and women paid the ultimate sacrifice so that all Americans may continue to live in freedom and peace Today, and every day, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. Unfortunately, President Clinton could not resist the temptation to score some political points when he chose today's memorial ceremony to criticize congressional efforts to enact meaningful antiterrorism legislation. In his remarks, the President claimed he sees ``disturbing signs of the old politics of diversion and delay.'' And just yesterday, the White House Chief of Staff made the untenable statement that antiterrorism legislation is not moving in Congress ``because there is this diversion going on to try to create attention on the Waco incident.'' Mr. Panetta even went so far as to describe as ``despicable'' the idea that congressional oversight should be brought to bear on the Waco tragedy. I know there has been a lot of talk recently about paranoia. But, judging by these remarks, it appears that the paranoia bug has infected the White House. Contrary to what President Clinton may believe, there is no hidden conspiracy on the Hill to divert or delay consideration of antiterrorism legislation. And Mr. Panetta may be disappointed to learn that we have not concocted a secret plot to focus attention on Waco as a means of diverting attention from the administration's own antiterrorism plan. Just look at the record: We have had 3 days of hearings, including hearings on the administration's controversial proposal to amend the Posse Comitatus Act. We have introduced comprehensive legislation that incorporates many of the administration's own antiterrorism proposals. And we continue to press ahead. In fact, my staff has been meeting regularly, even today, with White House and Justice Department officials to review--and perhaps improve--all of the various antiterrorism proposals that are now on the table. So, as we move ahead on an ambitious legislative agenda here in the Senate, including an historic plan to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002, I hope the President and his Chief of Staff would show some restraint and patience. Yes, we will give the administration's proposal every consideration. Yes, we will pass tough antiterrorism legislation. But our resolve to confront the terrorist threat must also be tempered with wisdom and restraint. What we do this year must withstand the test of time. After all, nothing less than our constitutional liberties are at stake. One would think and hope that the President of the United States would understand this simple, but immensely important, point. Mr. President, we have indicated to the President we would try to have a bill on his desk by the end of this month. That is still our hope. There have been a lot of delays, but we believe we can meet that challenge. But I must say, we want to be very careful and not do something based on the emotion of the moment. We want to take a look at this legislation a year from now, 2 years from now, 5 years from now, to make certain we have not trampled on someone's constitutional rights, some group or some individual, down the road. I think it is very important that we move prudently and we will do that, as we indicated and promised the American people. I hoped the President would be working with us, instead of taking shots at us based on misinformation. I assume somebody gave him bad information; otherwise, I am certain he would not make a statement like that. I yield the floor.