Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before discussing today's bad news about the Federal debt, how about ``another go,'' as the British put it, with our pop quiz. Remember? One question, one answer. The question: How many millions of dollars does it take to add up a trillion dollars? While you are thinking about it, bear in mind that it was the U.S. Congress that ran up the Federal debt that now exceeds $4.9 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business yesterday, September 19, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,965,954,997,403.59, of which, on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,850.85. Mr. President, back to our pop quiz, how many million in a trillion: There are a million million in a trillion.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this pending amendment will save the taxpayers of America $3 billion, if and when the Senate approves it. This amendment will mandate the abolition of three outdated, anachronistic Federal agencies--the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; the Agency for International Development, which is the foreign aid giveaway agency, Mr. President; and the U.S. Information Agency. Reorganization of U.S. foreign affairs institutions puts the interests of the American people first, for a change, and prepares the United States for the 21st century. The American people voted for a change last November, if my understanding of what the people wanted is anywhere on target. It is now the Senate's duty to follow through. Before I proceed, I must acknowledge that I have never, in my nearly 23 years in the Senate, seen such furious lobbying by the executive branch, and by the State Department, to resist cutting spending and resisting reorganization. They have made all sorts of charges, none of which is true; they have circulated all sorts of threats. They may have almost intimidated some Senators, but I do not think it will last-- certainly not in all cases. But we must proceed, so that the Senate can decide whether it will join the House of Representatives in saving the American taxpayers billions of dollars by discarding outmoded, anachronistic Federal agencies that ought not to exist anyway. I will tell you one thing, Mr. President. There is nothing so near eternal life as ``temporary'' Federal agencies. They go on and on and on like Tennyson's brook, and they cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars. Now, I confess a reservation about my own amendment, Mr. President, the reservation that my own amendment does not go far enough in changing the situation. It does, however, go a long way toward accomplishing the objectives that I laid out in Senate Bill 908, the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act. Just as importantly, this amendment is consistent with legislation introduced months ago--on February 15, to be precise--a bill numbered S. 422, offered by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell]. Now, the McConnell proposal proposed to abolish the Agency for International Development--that foreign aid giveaway crowd--and transfer its function into the State Department. A similar provision is incorporated into the Foreign Relations Committee's bill, S. 908. American taxpayers would be saved millions of dollars by cutting AID's overextended operating costs. On May 11, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee, of which I happen to be chairman, and he said at that time that his bill, S. 422, includes ``abolishing AID and consolidating the agency's functions under the Secretary of State * * *.'' He proceeded to say it would also ``move assistance programs into the State Department, reflecting my own view that the U.S. foreign aid must better serve the U.S. foreign policy interests. The connection between U.S. aid and U.S. interests has been lost with agencies acting wholly independent of our collective interests and good.'' That was Senator McConnell on May 11 in his appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. With all due respect, having praised Senator McConnell, as I have on many occasions for his courage and his foresight, I must say that the pending legislation, H.R. 1868, is a far cry from what he said when S. 422 was offered this past February to the Senate and about which Senator McConnell was speaking when he testified. The pending amendment now at the desk will get us back on track by eliminating two of the three anachronistic, wornout Federal agencies. In fact, if Senator McConnell would like to direct that AID--the Agency for International Development--be one of the two, I will be happy to accommodate him. I do not think he is going to want to do that because a great deal of pressure has been applied by certain Federal bureaucrats. They have confused the issue and muddied the water, and we may have to straighten out the situation by careful evaluation of the true facts of the situation involving all of this legislation. The congressional budget levels mandate that Congress deflate bloated bureaucracies in the Federal Government by eliminating vast duplications and by eliminating incredible waste across the board. Every Member of this Senate knows that duplication and waste has been going on. It is going on right now, and it will continue to go on, unless we have the guts to do something about it. The amendment pending at the desk meets the Budget Committee target levels for international affairs required to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. The savings thereby generated do not derive from excessive cuts in international programs. The savings derive entirely from reductions in the sprawling foreign affairs bureaucracy. Let me say this with all of the sincerity that I possess, Mr. President. If the Senate and the House of Representatives, composing this Congress, fail to seize this opportunity to consolidate, the American taxpayers will be stuck with a massive international affairs budget which feeds a huge, enormous bureaucracy. So the Senate, it seems to me, has two choices: One, it can save intelligently through consolidation; or two, it can cannibalize Federal programs. As I said earlier, there is nothing so close to eternal life as a temporary Federal agency. The idea of eliminating these worn out bureaucracies--that [[Page S 13907]] were temporarily designated, and specified as temporary, when they were created--is just as old as the agencies themselves. During the past decades, at least 89 studies have been made on the subject of consolidating our foreign affairs institutions. These have been conducted by a series of administrations, Democrat and Republican. I think, as just one Senator, Mr. President, that we should stop talking and do something to benefit the American taxpayers. In many respects, as I have said earlier, the pending amendment mirrors S. 908, the bill reported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The State Department reorganization bill thus reported by the Foreign Relations Committee has been endorsed by five--count them, five--former Secretaries of State. Every one of them, without exception, supported the abolition of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Information Agency. All five former Secretaries of State advocated publicly, in testimony, that all three agencies be eliminated and the money be saved. Now, the functions of these agencies will be transferred into the State Department, which in the process will be reorganized and revitalized. I have to say that our good friend, Warren Christopher, the present Secretary of State, whom I respect and for whom I have affection, concluded that just such a plan makes sense. In November of last year, Secretary of State Christopher submitted to Vice President Gore a reorganization plan, the Christopher reorganization plan, a plan similar to our reorganization plan. But that plan, sad to say, lost out to the bureaucratic lobbyists in the administration--including the White House--who care more about protecting their fiefdoms than they do about streamlining the Federal Government for the post-cold-war world. Indeed, it is an irony, it seems to me, that Secretary Warren Christopher's reorganization proposal was rejected, rejected by the very same office that had been created with great fanfare--to do what? To reinvent Government. Some reinvention. Let me say, Vice President Gore--and I liked him very much personally when he was a Senator and now as Vice President--but I feel obliged to mention the fact that Al Gore promised the American taxpayers that he would cut $5 billion out of the foreign affairs budget in the next 5 years while keeping the bureaucracy in place. I wanted to see how he could do that. That promise reminded me of the fellow who applied for a job at a circus, saying he could jump off a 90-foot tower into a wet washcloth, which he did. The only problem, he broke his neck. You cannot cut down on the bureaucracy without cutting down on the bureaucracy. In any case, our friend, Al Gore, Vice President of the United States, has not to this good day, this hour, submitted the first syllable of a plan for his proposal. Nothing. Zilch. The Vice President has said simply that he has no plan. But he does have an opinion about others, including Secretary of State Christopher, who have tried their best to get this country embarked on the proposition that we have to cut down on the Federal bureaucracy. The State Department itself has not submitted even one syllable of a formal authorization request for fiscal year 1996, this fiscal year coming up. Instead, what have we heard from the State Department? What have we heard from the Agency for International Development and others? We did have one pretty clear message which somebody slipped to us over the transom, a copy of an internal memorandum in which they outlined, Mr. President, exactly how they were going to oppose Senator Helms in my effort to cut down on the Federal budget. They said the plan is to ``delay, postpone, obfuscate, derail'' the congressional debate on reorganization. Now, Mr. President, I have consulted the highest levels of the administration on Foreign Relations Committee bill S. 908. In fact, inasmuch as the media has mentioned my visit with the President on August 11, I suppose it is common knowledge. I have never said publicly heretofore anything in detail about my meeting with President Clinton. He was very gracious and generous with his time, and if I am able to read the expressions on anybody's face, I perceived that the President was much impressed at the detailed outline that was presented that afternoon. In any case, the pending amendment provides enormous flexibility to the President. I think that is why Mr. Clinton appeared so receptive to proposals contained in S. 908 to consolidate those anachronistic foreign affairs bureaucracies. The President understands that this is an issue about good government and about saving the American taxpayers billions of dollars. It allows the executive branch even greater latitude than exists in current law. It requires the abolishment of only two or three outdated agencies. As a matter of fact, I am willing to settle for abolishing two of them--and I will let them decide which two. But let us do away with two of them, two out of the three. This legislation, this amendment at the desk, does not--and I reiterate for emphasis--it does not legislate every position and office in the Department of State. But it does provide an organized framework for consolidation and it does provide necessary extraordinary authority for a smooth transition to a smaller, more efficient, far less expensive foreign affairs apparatus. As the President of the United States said on the afternoon of August 11, ``Who can be against that?'' ``Who can be against that?'' I am not implying, nor should anybody infer, that the President has endorsed any plan. I do not know. He said he was going to get back to me, but he never did. I suspect that he was subjected to some rather severe lobbying from within the official family, but I do not know that. But I do know that consolidation of U.S. foreign affairs and all of its institutions is obviously the right thing to do. It is a wise proposal on which unanimous agreement should result. We ought not to be here prepared to debate it. We should not be here quibbling over $23 million or whatever. We should be standing in a phalanx, and: Yes, sir, we are going to cut down the size of this Government and especially the foreign aid giveaway programs. Because, by doing so we can save the American taxpayers, as I said at the outset, billions--not millions-- billions of dollars. And in the process we will be strengthening the hand of the Secretary of State in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. That is why five former Secretaries of State appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee and endorsed our proposal that emerged from the committee. Abraham Lincoln said it well, I think. He said, ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new,'' Mr. Lincoln said, ``so we must think anew and act anew.'' Abe Lincoln said so many smart things, but he did not say one that was any smarter than that one. I agree with it and I think 99 percent of the American people, at least those who are not on the Federal payroll, will agree with what Abraham Lincoln said. The need for innovative thinking is not tomorrow, next week, next month or next year. It is now. It is time to shed ourselves of these archaic, burdensome, anachronistic institutions so that we may enter a turbulent 21st century--and it is going to be turbulent--so we can go into that century with a more effective State Department and a more coherent foreign policy and one that does not, as now is the case, bleed the American taxpayer white. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the skyrocketing Federal debt, now soaring toward $5 trillion, has been fueled for a generation now by bureaucratic hot air--and it is sort of like the weather--everybody talks about it but almost nobody did much about it until immediately after the elections in November 1994. But when the new 104th Congress convened this past January, the U.S. House of Representatives quickly approved a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On the Senate side, all but one of the 54 Republicans supported the balanced budget amendment--that was the good news. The bad news was that only 13 Democrats supported it--which killed hopes for a balanced budget amendment for the time being. Since a two- thirds vote--67 Senators, if all Senator's are present--is necessary to approve a constitutional amendment, the proposed Senate amendment failed by one vote. There will be another vote either this year or in 1996. Here is today's bad debt boxscore: As of the close of business Monday, September 18, the Federal debt-- down to the penny--stood at exactly $4,963,468,747,991.22 or $18,841.41 for every man, woman, and child on a per capita basis. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on April 4, 1995, 19 Senators sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture in which we expressed our concern about proposed changes in poultry labeling standards. The USDA has ignored our concerns and is preparing to impose unfair and subjective rules which will adversely and unnecessarily affect the poultry industry in North Carolina, indeed across this country. At issue is the process by which the poultry industry labels its products--either ``fresh'' or ``frozen''--and whether the USDA will change the rules, unnecessarily and unfairly, on America's food producers. The losers, if the USDA prevails, will not be confined to America's chicken and turkey producers and processors, but also the consumers who are certain to be confused and misled by this USDA bureaucratic meddling. Senators should be aware of some important facts when considering whether the Senate should allow the USDA to proceed with such unnecessary requirements. First, the proposed rule change unfairly singles out the poultry industry. Currently, meat, fish, and poultry products are allowed by USDA to be preserved at temperatures below 26 degrees and be labeled as ``fresh.'' If the USDA has its way, the poultry industry alone must label its products as ``previously frozen'' when poultry products are stored at temperatures below 26 degrees. Second, the proposed rule changes will hinder the growth of America's chicken and turkey industry. The USDA bureaucracy proposes to make permanent standards that the poultry industry already has had difficulty in meeting. Keep in mind, under the USDA's proposal, poultry companies will be required to process, store, and transport their products at specific temperatures beyond their control--and this bureaucratic meddling will automatically reduce the quality of food. This disservice to the consumer will also harm the poultry industry. Mr. President, America's poultry industry is the envy of the world. Its further growth, and the confidence of the consumer, are at stake in this debate. The Senate should support Senators Cochran and Bumpers in their efforts to prohibit funding for this unwise USDA rule change that will serve nobody's best interests--except, perhaps, the ego of the bureaucrats who came up with an idea whose time should never come. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the impression will not go away: The $4.9 trillion Federal debt stands today as a sort of grotesque parallel to television's energizer bunny that appears and appears and appears in precisely the same way that the Federal debt keeps going up and up and up. Politicians like to talk a good game--and ``talk'' is the operative word--about reducing the Federal deficit and bringing the Federal debt under control. But watch how they vote. Control, Mr. President. As of Friday, September 15, at the close of business, the total Federal debt stood at exactly $4,962,989,568,088.23 or $18,839.59 per man, woman, child on a per capita basis. Res ipsa loquitur. Some control, isn't it?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it does not take a rocket scientist to be aware that the U.S. Constitution forbids any President to spend even a dime of Federal tax money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by Congress--both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. So when a politician or an editor or a commentator pops off that ``Reagan ran up the Federal debt'' or that ``Bush ran it up,'' bear in mind that the Founding Fathers, two centuries before the Reagan and Bush Presidencies, made it very clear that it is the constitutional duty of Congress--a duty Congress cannot escape--to control Federal spending. Thus, it is the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress that has created the incredible Federal debt which stood at $4,968,803,366,390.98 as of the close of business Thursday, September 14. This outrageous debt-- which will be passed on to our children and grandchildren--averages out to $18,861.66 for every man, woman and child in America.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before discussing today's bad news about the Federal debt, how about ``another go'', as the British put it, with our pop quiz. Remember? One question, one answer. The question: How many millions of dollars does it take to add up a trillion dollars? While you are thinking about it, bear in mind that it was the U.S. Congress that ran up the Federal debt that now exceeds $4.9 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business yesterday, September 13, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,967,410,712,825.60, of which, on a per capita basis, every man, woman and child in America owes $18,856.78. Mr. President, back to our pop quiz, how many million in a trillion: There are a million million in a trillion.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the skyrocketing Federal debt, now soaring toward $5 trillion, has been fueled for a generation now by bureaucratic hot air--and it is sort of like the weather--everybody talks about it but almost nobody did much about it until immediately after the elections in November 1994. But when the new 104th Congress convened this past January, the U.S. House of Representatives quickly approved a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On the Senate side, all but one of the 54 Republicans supported the balanced budget amendment--that was the good news. The bad news was that only 13 Democrats supported it--which killed hopes for a balanced budget amendment for the time being. Since a two- thirds vote--67 Senators, if all Senator's are present--is necessary to approve a constitutional amendment, the proposed Senate amendment failed by one vote. There will be another vote either this year or in 1996. Here is today's bad debt boxscore: As of the close of business Tuesday, September 12, the federal debt-- down to the penny--stood at exactly $4,964,465,905,748.40 or $18,845.20 for every man, woman, and child on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on that evening in 1972 when I first was elected to the Senate, I made a commitment that I would never fail to see a young person, or a group of young people, who wanted to see me. It has proved enormously beneficial to me because I have been inspired by the estimated 60,000 young people with whom I have visited during the nearly 23 years I have been in the Senate. Mr. President, most of them have been concerned about the enormity of the Federal debt that Congress has run up for the coming generations to pay. The young people and I almost always discuss the fact that under the U.S. Constitution, no President can spend a dime of Federal money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by both the House and Senate of the United States. That is why I began making these daily reports to the Senate on February 22, 1992. I wanted to make a matter of daily record of the precise size of the Federal debt which as of yesterday, Monday, September 11, stood at $4,962,944,077,933.57 or $18,839.42 for every man, woman, and child in America on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, instead of making remarks, I have prepared a sheet that is on every Senator's desk that explains, or refutes in one or two cases, suggestions about what this amendment does or does not do. Let me go down the list. First, the question and then the answer. How much of the taxpayers' money will this amendment save? [[Page S 13197]] CBO says it will save $5.68 billion over 7 years. What are the work requirements under the Helms amendment? And by the way it is cosponsored by the distinguished occupant of the chair, Mr. Faircloth, and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Grams of Minnesota, and Mr. Shelby of Alabama. What are the work requirements under the Helms amendment? Food stamp recipients must work a total of 40 hours over a 4-week period before receiving benefits. Question. Are temporarily unemployed people denied food stamps? No, community service will count as work. Are work requirements in the Helms amendment stronger than in the Dole amendment? And, incidentally Senator Dole supports the Helms amendment. Yes. The Dole amendment allows recipients to receive food stamps for a full year and requires only 6 months of work to qualify. Will pregnant women be denied food stamps? No, there are millions of pregnant women who went to work this morning. But if and when they are unable to work they can and will get food stamps when qualified. Will retired people be denied food stamps? Of course not. Citizens over 55 are exempt from the work requirements. How many individuals does the Helms amendment target? It targets the 2.5 million able-bodied individuals who refuse to work. Exempted by this amendment are children under 18, parents with children, parents with disabled dependents, mentally or physically unfit, and all who are over 55. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I do not believe I can talk over the various discussions going on.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it takes no rocket scientist to be aware that the U.S. Constitution forbids any President to spend even a dime of Federal tax money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by Congress--both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. So when a politician or an editor or a commentator pops off that ``Reagan ran up the Federal debt'' or that ``Bush ran it up,'' bear in mind that the Founding Fathers, two centuries before the Reagan and Bush presidencies, made it very clear that it is the constitutional duty solely of Congress--a duty Congress cannot escape--to control Federal spending. Thus, it is the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress that has created the incredible Federal debt which stood at $4,962,703,726,882.93 as of the close of business Friday, September 8. This outrageous debt--which will be passed on to our children and grandchildren--averages out to $18,838.51 for every man, woman, and child in America.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I will not consume very much more time. Thad Cochran knows of my respect for him. There is no Senator in this body for whom I have greater respect. But I have to say to him, as I say to the distinguished Senator from Vermont, I do not know which amendment they are talking about, but they are certainly not talking about the pending amendment by Jesse Helms. For example, both Senators have said and have voiced a lamentation that people who are temporarily out of work would be cut off of food stamps. Clearly, on page 2 of the amendment, it says, ``For the purposes of paragraph (1), an individual may perform community service or work for a State or political subdivision of a State through a program established by a State or political subdivision.'' Then, Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Vermont mentioned people needing food stamps in earthquake situations--workers are needed for community service then more than ever. They should not be desirous of just sitting around while somebody cleans up the mess. I, then, heard that we ought not to deny pregnant women food stamps. Mr. President, there are pregnant women all over this country working today. As long as they are able to work, they do. Some of them--who have worked in my office and at my television station before I lost my mind and ran for the Senate--worked until a few days before they went to the hospital. I am not saying that they ought to do that. But, to say that a pregnant woman should automatically get food stamps does not make sense. It is not fair to all the pregnant women who get up and go to work every day by the millions in this country. Excluded from this amendment--let me repeat--excluded are children under 18, parents with dependents under 18, mentally or physically disabled, members of a household caring for incapacitated people, and people over 55 years of age. [[Page S 13157]] Although many families with children receive some food stamp assistance, the overwhelming majority of them also receive aid from another Federal program, another costly Federal program--the AFDC. Welfare benefits are already given to these families. Mr. President, we are supposed to be dedicated to working toward a balanced budget. The Heritage Foundation has estimated that 9 out of every 10 recipients will automatically drop off the roll if you require them to work under the pending amendment. Also, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the pending Helms amendment will save $5.6 billion of the taxpayers' money over the next 7 years. As for the role of the States, the Republican welfare bill removes a mountain of redtape and administrative costs are cut tenfold. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in a report from 1986, states that enforcing strong work requirements will save $3 on welfare costs for every dollar the State invests in a work program. Currently, there are 15 million State and local employees within 23,000 county and municipal governments. If absolutely nobody were to drop off the welfare rolls because of the Helms amendment--and this is next to impossible because of the Heritage Foundation estimate which I just stated--this amendment would increase the State and local employment rolls by only 3 percent, and then only for workers working one-fourth of the time. Finally, it is easier for States to keep track of recipients when they sign up for work and benefits at the same time and place. Trying to keep track of recipients in private sector jobs while making sure that they are in fact working could be an administrative nightmare. Therefore, I must respectfully decline to accept the criticism of the Helms amendment by my friend from Vermont and my friend from Mississippi. Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article of February 1994, from the Readers Digest to which I referred earlier, entitled ``The Food Stamp Racket,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 2523

Mr. HELMS. I see. So I will not be burdening the Senate if I take a few minutes longer than 5 or 10 minutes with my remarks, if no Senator is here to offer an amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the last thing I want to do is shorten any remarks that the distinguished Senator from New York wished to make. He is a fine orator and a good Senator and a good friend. Let me ask a parliamentary inquiry, if I may. Is there a time limitation on each amendment this day?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I call up amendment, No. 2523, and ask it be stated.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I had the clerk read what I considered to be the most relevant part of the amendment. It has to do with people sitting around on their posteriors and doing no work at all--not wanting to do any work at all--yet drawing food stamps regularly and purchasing anything they want to purchase with them, regardless of the statute. I say this as a Senator who has been here for almost 23 years, as a Senator who has served as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, during which time I did my best to crack down on the abuse of the Food Stamp Program. I recall getting the inspectors general to conduct a pilot program in a number of States, and I specified that my State be first, the State of North Carolina. The inspectors went to cities like Fayetteville and Wilmington, Laurel Hill and Durham, Charlotte and High Point, Winston- Salem, Greensboro and Asheville. Everywhere they went, they found terrific fraud in the Food Stamp Program. That is the reason I am offering this amendment today. Now, there are going to be Senators who will speak in opposition to it--including at least one who is a very close personal friend of mine, Mr. Cochran--as I understand it. I intend to hold the floor until Senator Cochran can get here so that he can speak against my amendment, which I wish he would not do. But he does what he does in good conscience and I respect him for it. Mr. President, I have seen the good intentions of Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and others who have sponsored and advocated the Food Stamp Program. Instead, this program has moved rapidly into a multibillion dollar boondoggle with the American taxpayers footing the bill. I doubt there are very many citizens who, themselves, have not seen examples of exactly what I am talking about. The Federal Food Stamp Program, over the past 3 decades, has clearly been a major contributor to the Federal debt which, I might add, Mr. President, will surpass the $5 trillion mark before the end of this year. Mr. President, as an aside, I went into the Cloakroom not long ago and posed a little question to several Senators. I asked, ``How many million in a trillion?'' I received five different answers from Senators who participate in the fiscal policy of this country. If the Chair wants to know how many million in a trillion, I will tell him. There are a million million in a trillion. That gives you a perspective of what we are doing to the young people in allowing this debt to increase and increase and increase while efforts to enact a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution are filibustered. I say that as a preface to my having offered an amendment to the Dole substitute amendment to H.R. 4, the Work Opportunities Act. If Congress truly expects to achieve meaningful welfare reform, Congress absolutely, in my judgment, must insist upon responsibility and common sense in the operation of the Federal Food Stamp Program. On many, many occasions, I urged the Agriculture Committee and the various witnesses and nominees who have come before the committee to reexamine their spending priorities when it comes to Federal nutrition programs. I have pleaded, time and time again, that the Agriculture Committee decide, and decide now, whether the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be restored, as an entity, to its original purpose--that is to say, a department dedicated to America's farmers and agriculture--instead of the social services instrumentality that it has become during the past 30 years. For the record, the USDA's 1995 feeding assistance and nutrition programs cost the American taxpayers an estimated $39 billion with more than 40 million Americans participating in the free food and free services program. That is for 1 year. The Food Stamp Program alone costs $27 billion of which $3 billion is squandered due to waste, abuse, and fraud--as I described earlier when inspectors went into my own State of North Carolina. And what is true in North Carolina is true in every State in the Union. Mr. President, to put these figures into perspective, 62 percent of the entire USDA budget goes for food and consumer services with the Food Stamp Program comprising 42 percent of the entire budget. I wonder how many Americans realize that. It is easy to understand why the farmers I hear from are sick and tired of being shoved around by the Federal agency created to serve them. I recall my years as chairman of the Ag Committee in the 1980's. I focused attention time and time again, on specific, precise identification of the waste and fraud found in the Food Stamp Program. I found a program in desperate need of repair--that was 10 years ago-- because of the countless numbers of people willing to take advantage of a Federal Government handout--and they still are. The only difference is there are more of them today than there were then. I discovered then what Reader's Digest reported in its February, 1994 issue: . . . food stamps have become a second currency used to pay for drugs, prostitution, weapons, cars--even a house.'' People have even bought homes. They have gone to houses of assignation, and the proprietors of such enterprises accept food stamps. Unfortunately, the political climate today is the same as it has always been. Attempts to restructure Federal programs to meet the needs of the poor while trying to use wisely the money of the American taxpayers brings the same old cadre of people saying this is heartless and this is cruel. It is not. It is an attempt to straighten this Government out--one small facet of it, but one expensive facet nonetheless. Those who support the status quo of maintaining unlimited resources for social programs without regard to the cost of these programs to the taxpayers of today, and tomorrow, have simply ignored two significant facts crucial to [[Page S 13153]] the welfare debate--and I would be derelict in my duty if I did not bring that up. First, Congress--not some bureaucracy downtown--the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, is responsible for the expensive and costly social service programs and the resulting runaway debt. These programs may have been recommended from downtown, or by some politician who was thinking of the next election instead of the next generation, but the final, ultimate responsibility for the debt, for the creation of these foolish programs, lies right here where we work. We cannot put it on any President or any department or any bureaucrat. It was done right here. Every day that the Senate has been in session, for more than 3 years, I have reported--maybe some Senators have noticed it--the most recently available exact total of the Federal debt down to the penny. For example, as of the close of business on Thursday, September 7, the exact total stood at $4,968,651,845,437.79. (On a per capita basis every man, woman and child owes $18,861.09.) The second point, which naturally follows the first, is that Congress must restore fiscal responsibility and integrity to federal social service and welfare programs. Nobody else is going to do it. Nobody else can do it. If we do not do it, it will not be done, which brings me to the current discussion on precisely how the Federal Government is going to remedy the broken and irreparably destructive welfare system. I intentionally used the word ``irreparably'' because the current system built on a foundation of a government handout with nothing in return is beyond restoration. The concept is bad. It is bad for the taxpayer. It is bad for the personal morality of the lawmakers who permit it to happen, and in fact, encourage it to happen. And, it is bad for the recipient of welfare who is able to work but just will not work. So that is why I am here this morning. We must instill into the welfare instrumentality and infrastructure the components of the underpinnings of what I like to call the Miracle of America. Can you imagine what laughter would have ensued if a little over 200 years ago at Philadelphia the Founding Fathers had been confronted with the suggestion that they pay people not to work--if somebody had suggested a Food Stamp Program? I think Thomas Jefferson would have rolled on the floor in protest. We absolutely owe it to the people of America to do what we can--and do it now--to build an accountable work ethic, personal responsibility and common sense in public policy. If we do not do this, we fail in our duty. So the pending amendment, which I have offered to the Dole substitute amendment, will require able-bodied individuals who receive food stamp benefits to work at least 40 hours every month--not every week, 40 hours every month--before they receive food stamp benefits. This amendment will save the American taxpayers $5.6 billion. My amendment focuses on people who are able to work. I do not want anybody coming to the Senate floor moaning and groaning, ``How about the sick and the infirm?'' And do not try to tell me that there are not some kind of jobs available. It may not be the kind of jobs or the kind of work that these people want to do. The problem is they do not want to work. The underlying substitute amendment simply does not go far enough in work requirements, as far as I am concerned. It allows recipients to receive benefits for an entire year while requiring that they work only 6 months. This loophole--and I admire the author of the substitute--allows recipients to sit on their rear ends and do nothing and yet continue to receive those benefits that cost the taxpayers billions of dollars. My pending amendment sets the parameters so that able-bodied citizens receiving food stamp benefits--and this includes approximately 2.5 million people--must work before he or she receives their monthly allotment of food stamp benefits. In the meantime, while earning their food assistance, recipients will have ample time to look for further permanent employment so that they can move altogether off of the welfare rolls. One additional important fact: the pending amendment exempts children; it exempts their parents; it exempts the disabled; it exempts the elderly. The pending amendment focuses--as I stated before--on the 2.5 million able-bodied food stamp recipients. In my judgment, Congress simply can no longer look the other way when it comes to restoring responsibility to the Federal nutrition and welfare programs. Congress can no longer allow unlimited tax dollars to be used on misguided, although well-intentioned, social programs. It is time to stop throwing taxpayers' money at pie-in-the-sky Federal programs instead of working to get to the root of the problem. This is one step toward reaching the root of the problem. It goes without saying that I hope Senators will help accomplish this goal with their support of this amendment. Mr. President, I understood the distinguished Senator, my friend from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, was to be here about 11 or 11:15 so that he could speak in opposition to my amendment. I hope the Chair will recognize the Senator from Mississippi at such time as he may appear in the Chamber for that purpose. I yield the floor.