Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to use this time to rise in support of the telecommunications bill, the bill we have talked about last week and will continue on this week; hopefully to finish the bill early this week. I know we have talked about it a great deal. Last year there was considerable discussion. It seems to me it comes along at a time when it is responding to what the American people said in 1994, and that is we ought to move away, have less Government, less regulation, and let the marketplace function. That is what this bill is designed to do. It seeks to remove some artificial governmental regulations, regulations that go beyond simply providing for fair competition. I think we want to move in that direction. Times have changed a great deal. As some of my experience back with the Rural Electric Association showed, seeking to bring electricity to areas where there was relatively low density and where there were few people living, no one in the competitive business was really interested in serving those areas [[Page S8128]] that were very low in revenue. Hence, the cooperative effort of the rural electrics. I think cooperation is necessary and will be here in the area of universal coverage. We need to provide with certainty that there will be telephone communications, and that is part of this bill. At the same time, we need to open it to full access in competition. So many things are happening, so many things are changing, so many things that will bring to a State like mine the opportunity to have all kinds of communications, indeed to conduct the kinds of businesses in Wyoming that you could not conduct without entry to an information network, without the kinds of things that will be provided here. This bill is designed to remove restrictions on competition. I think that is what it should be all about. It is designed to create opportunities for investment and growth, not only in the communications system in this country but certainly global communications. I do not want to take a great deal of time but I do rise in support of that concept. I think this bill does the things it is designed to do. I know there are differences of view. That is as it should be. There are great debates in this place. They are designed to show there is more than one alternative, otherwise there would not be a great debate. I am one who thinks, if we can set forth here the conditions that ought to be met in the case of local telephones before they expand, and long distance into the local, that is the way we ought to do it, and keep the substantive judgments of the Department of Justice at a minimum. The authority lies there, of course, to move in when there are unfair trade practices. That is as it should be. So the result we look for, of course, is lower prices. We look for expanded options. We look for 1.5 to 3 million high-technology jobs that will be developed, and more exports. So this is a good step. I look forward to supporting the bill. I look forward to the Senate completing its work this week so we can move on, then, to some of the other features. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Just for a moment, will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, let me thank the Senator from Arizona for bringing this up. I think it is significant for all of us to realize that had it not been for the bombing in Oklahoma City, we would not be here today. We would not even be having a discussion. There would not be a debate on habeas reform. There would not be a counterterrorism bill. Certainly, this contentious item of habeas that we have been trying to bring up, at least for the last 9 years that I know of, would not even be discussed in an open debate as it is today. So it is very significant for people to understand this is all precipitated by the tragedy that took place in April of this year in Oklahoma City. On Monday of this week, we had a group of people that came up from Oklahoma. Among others, they were Diane Leonard, whose husband, Don, a Secret Service agent, was killed in the bombing; we had Glenn Seidl, who lost his wife, Kathy; Kay Ice, who lost her brother, Paul, a Customs Agent; Mike Reyes, who lost his father and was injured himself; and Danny McKinney, Linda's husband. It goes on and on. There is not time to name all of them. But they were here for one reason. That reason is that they wanted to be sure that we had the strongest possible habeas reform in this bill. So when you stop and realize what has happened in Oklahoma, and what happened in Oklahoma as I mentioned once before on this floor, but I think it is worth bringing up again at this point because it gives you an insight into what the families of the victims in Oklahoma are thinking about because it is something that is contemporary right now-- a guy named Roger Dale Stafford is scheduled to be executed on July 1. I do not know whether he will be. It is hard to say. In the spring of 1978, someone stopped to help him with his car. He was broken down in Oklahoma. He murdered in cold blood a Sergeant Lorenz, and the sergeant's wife and small son, and drove 60 miles to Oklahoma City, and committed a great crime known as ``The Sirloin Stockade Crime,'' where he rounded up six people and took them into the refrigerator, tied them up, and executed the six of them. He has been found guilty on all nine counts and has nine death sentences. That was 17 years ago. I might suggest that Roger Dale Stafford today is 100 pounds heavier than he was 17 years ago. So I am sure he is eating well. He has been in the cell, probably living under better conditions than he was before, for the past 17 years. I cannot help but think when anyone is considering a crime of the magnitude of that which we had in Oklahoma City, Mr. President, that they spend a lot of time thinking, ``What is the downside? What is the worst thing that can happen to me if I get caught and convicted? It is going to be that I will be executed. Wait a minute. The average time between conviction and execution in America is 9\1/2\ years. So I will be there for 10 or 15 or 20 years watching color TV in an air- conditioned cell.'' That loses its deterrent value for those of us who are narrow enough in our thinking to believe that punishment is a deterrent to crime. So without this, we have no way of delivering the message to other individuals who might be considering such a heinous crime as that which was committed in Oklahoma City. So let me just say that I am here today on behalf of multitudes of people in the State of Oklahoma who were killed in the brutal bombing, the mass murder that took place last April in Oklahoma City. The message they told us last Monday to deliver on the floor of this Senate, the loud and clear message, was yes, if this does not pass, we still want to support the bill as it is right now and the habeas element that is in the bill. That is fine. But the message was let us get the strongest possible habeas [[Page S7831]] reform that we can have. That happens to be the John Kyl amendment. So I am not here speaking on behalf of one U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma. I am speaking on behalf of the families of those individuals who were killed in that very brutal act in April of this year. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me clarify. I used the words ``at this level.'' I do not believe we would be having the debate at this level if it had not been for the fact it did not happen. I might also observe that the same attorney, who is a very capable and competent attorney in Oklahoma, Steven Jones, the one who so successfully got the delays in the Stafford case, is the same attorney that is handling Timothy McVeigh's case here, too.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is a very special day to Oklahoma. We have a very distinguished group of people from Oklahoma who are at this very moment visiting with various Senators who oppose the idea of habeas reform. I cannot think of any stronger message that we can take to these people than from those who are the survivors and those who have families lost in the tragic explosion in Oklahoma. I just came back from my 76th town hall meeting out in Oklahoma. I think I probably have more of those than any other Member of this body. A question always comes up when I have these meetings. They say something to the effect, ``Why is it that people in Washington are more concerned about the criminals than they are the victims?'' I try to explain to them--and I know that this is rather controversial to say, but I really believe it in my own heart, Mr. President--that at least prior to this new Congress coming in, the majority of people in both of these bodies did not honestly in their own hearts believe that punishment is a deterrent to crime. It is one that I look at, and it seems very logical that when you take a tragedy such as we experienced in Oklahoma, when the perpetrators of that crime were preparing this explosion and what they were going to do, the bombing and the attack on the Federal building in Oklahoma City, this is not something that they did just overnight. This is something they planned--not for days, not for weeks, but maybe even, we feel, for several months. During the time that something like this is happening, those individuals who are making the plans to detonate a bomb that will murder many, many people have to be thinking what is the worst thing, what is the downside of this, what is the worst thing that can happen to me if I get caught? The worst thing that can happen, as they look at it, might be to sit around in some air-conditioned prison cell watching color TV, eating three good meals a day for 10 years, 15 years, 20 years. And I suggest to you, Mr. President, that is not much of a deterrent. I think particularly some of the people from maybe the Middle Eastern cultures, and others, people who are trained terrorists--most of them-- do not think they are going to be around for 10 years, anyway. Here in America, it takes an average of 9\1/2\ years between conviction and execution. I suggest that takes away all of the deterrent value. This happens because we have things built into our system. I am sure that they were put in there in the sense of trying to be fair to everyone, and to make sure no chances are taken that someone might be executed who was not actually the one who committed the crime. But they sit in there through appeal after appeal after appeal. Roger Dale Stafford, in the spring of 1978, murdered a Sergeant Lorenz, then he murdered his wife, then he murdered Sergeant Lorenz' small son. Then he turned around and drove 60 miles to Oklahoma City, where he went into the Sirloin Stockade Restaurant. He rounded up six employees at gunpoint, bound them, took them into a refrigerator, and murdered them execution style. That was in 1978. Roger Dale Stafford is now still in McAlester in our State prison in Oklahoma. By the way, he is now over 100 pounds more than he was when he went in, so you know they are feeding him pretty well. He has been sitting in his cell for 17 years and probably living better than he lived before anyway. And I suggest to you that is not just an inhumane thing to do to the families of those victims of his murders, but it is no deterrent for other people who may be tempted to do the same thing. What is interesting about this is that the attorney who is so successful in getting all of these appeals and all these delays in the ultimate execution which still has not taken place of the guy who did kill those nine people back in Oklahoma in 1978, that attorney is a very competent and capable attorney named Steven Jones from Enid, OK. I happen to know him personally. I suggest to you that Steven Jones is also the attorney for Timothy McVeigh, one who is held right now as possibly one who is responsible for the tragedy in Oklahoma City. So today we have a number of people who are here from Oklahoma. We have Diane Leonard, whose husband Don, a Secret Service agent, was killed in the bombing in Oklahoma City. We have Glenn Seidl, who lost his wife, Kathy, in the bombing. I talked to Kay Ice just a few minutes ago, who lost her brother, Paul. He was a customs agent; Mike Reyes, who lost his father and was injured himself in the explosion. I believe he is the one who actually fell four stories and was able to survive. But he lost his father; Jason Smith, who lost his mother, Linda; Dan McKinney. That is Linda's husband. He was here today; Gary Bland, who lost [[Page S7667]] his wife, Sally; Suzanne Britten, who lost her fiance. It is very significant that we understand what these people are doing today. We had a news conference at 10:30, and we stood down there in front of the Senate and they described the types of deaths that their loved ones had been subjected to, how there was no longer any facial characteristics left; they could not really identify them as they normally would; and being exposed to this, they are going through all this for one reason. That is, they know the way to deter this type of thing from happening again is to have swift justice. We had a President who came out and said we want swift and sure justice. I call upon the President right now to stand up before these Oklahomans who are up here today and say, yes, I support Senator Hatch's habeas reform as in the bill. Frankly, as a Senator from Oklahoma, I am going to support the Kyl amendment for a stronger habeas bill. It is very moderate and very fair, but it is a habeas reform that will not allow these things to go year after year after year, 10 years, 15 years and 20 years, where all deterrent value is lost. So, Mr. President, I hope that those Senators who are being visited right now by Diane Leonard, and by Glenn Seidl, and by Kay Ice and Mike Reyes and Jason Smith and Dan McKinney and Gary Bland and Suzanne Britten will stop and realize that they have an opportunity to preclude something like this from happening again, allow the message that will go out to all who might be considering such an act that in America we are not going to allow someone to sit around for 8 years or 10 years or 20 years before an execution takes place. We will in fact have swift justice. Maybe, Mr. President, I am old fashioned, but I really believe in my heart that punishment is a deterrent to crime, and sitting around for 10 years is not cruel punishment. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Alaska. Mr. President, last night, when we were watching the discussion take place, a comment was made by the Senator from Wyoming that the debate is getting redundant on this budget; that we have heard about every argument there is to hear and now we are working on repetition to try to drive it in. It occurred to me that it sounded very much like the debate that we had on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. At that time, people were standing up and saying, ``Well, give us the details. Give us the details. Where do you want to make cuts? What do you want to do with Medicare and Social Security,'' and all the contentious items that we can so easily demagog? I can suggest right now we have the details. But I wanted to take a couple of minutes this morning to share one thing with you, and that is we know pretty much how it is going to come out. We know who is going to vote for it and who is going to vote against it. And we know why. First of all, the argument has been used that there are cuts. We have talked about this over and over again. They are not cuts in the Medicare system. We are talking about a growth factor that is built in. And the same thing is true with all the other areas that people are very much concerned with. What we are trying to do is take this one last golden opportunity that we have--this is it, our chance to fulfill that obligation that the American people gave to us back on November 8 with a mandate. The No. 1 mandate was to balance the budget. This is an opportunity to do it. The House has already done theirs. All we have to do is do it here. I think the votes are here to do it. But I have heard people stand up, such as one Senator the other day, and say every Senator wants to balance the budget. I suggest, Mr. President, that is not true. I suggest that they want people to think they want to balance the budget, but what it gets down to is they are basically traditional big spenders and big taxers and they want the status quo. They want to keep Government going as it has been going. To demonstrate this, I am going to tell you, Mr. President, who is going to be voting against this. The same people who will be voting against it today are the ones that voted for and are the right-to-know supporters. These are the ones that did not want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. So during that debate, I characterized who these people are who do not want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and today do not want a balanced budget. I suggest to you they are the ones that can be identified with a voting behavior of taxing and spending. And I use as my examples the tax bill of 1993, the tax bill that was a Clinton bill that some people are touting as the great deficit reduction bill. In fact, it did not reduce any programs. All it did was increase taxes, the largest tax increase in history--$267 billion. That is not what the American people wanted. It was an increase in taxes on all segments of society, a Social Security tax increase for thousands of Social Security recipients. It was a 70-percent increase. Yet, these individuals who will vote today against this balanced budget are the ones who voted for that tax increase. Then along came the Clinton stimulus program. It was characterized by a Democrat in this body as the largest single spending increase in the history of public finance in America or anywhere in the world. Such things as the $2.5 billion for swimming pools, parking lots, ice rink warming huts, alpine ski lifts, and other pork barrel projects; $1 billion for summer jobs, $1.1 billion for AIDS treatment and food distribution, on and on and on, all these spending increases that supposedly were going to stimulate the economy. So I characterized those individuals who voted for those two bills and also who are rated as big spenders. There are a number of corporations that rate big spenders. The main one is the National Taxpayers Union. So I looked at those individuals who cosponsored the Right To Know Act which was the one to demolish, to do away with, the balanced budget amendment and stop our effort for a balanced budget. I found, of all the 41 cosponsors, all 41 voted yes on the biggest spending bill in the history of this body. And all 41 of those individuals had a National Taxpayer Union rating of D or F. So, Mr. President, I think that we have had a lot of debate on this. But when it gets right down to it, the bottom line is this: Those individuals who are trying to hold on to the past, those status quo, those who did not hear the mandate that was so loud and clear on November 8, 1994, are going to be voting for big spending, big government, tax increases, spending increases and vote against the balanced budget that we have up before us today. I believe it will pass, because those individuals who are for the status quo are now in a minority. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from Nevada for responding to questions. I would like to make an observation. I had the occasion to be sitting in the chair for the past hour before the current occupant of the chair, and I listened to the discussion that took place in the Chamber. It occurred to me that maybe some people for the first time realize how truly difficult it is to balance the budget. I had an occasion last night to see on C-SPAN the Democratic whip in the House of Representatives standing up and talking and stating over and over and over again that they are requesting reductions in taxes for the very wealthy people and that those reductions in taxes will be paid by what has always been referred to as the working people. And I have always found that to be a little offensive. It is kind of implying that other people are not working. I think it is a very clever way to state it because everyone identifies with that. But we are at a defining moment right now. There was truly a revolution that took place on November 8, 1994, and everyone agrees with this. I know there are others who do not like the way it turned out, but the conservatives did, in fact, win. And while there is a lot of confusion over this as to how it must be done, the message that came in November 1994 was: ``We demand change. We don't want the status quo.'' Now we are seeing the defenders of the status quo on this floor talking about, ``Well, we can't do this. We can't have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We can't adopt the budget as proposed by the Republicans because it might incur a hardship on some of the people in this country.'' I would suggest, first of all, that we make it abundantly clear that the budget that is going to be proposed in both the other body and in this body does not have a cut in Medicare. As a matter of fact, it adds a bit in growth in Medicare. That growth is somewhere around 7.1 percent. The President had a report from his trustees on Medicare. There are six of them. He appointed them. We are talking about people like Donna Shalala and people like the other Cabinet members. They reported to the President of the United States that if we do not do something about Medicare, Medicare will start into a deficit in the fiscal year of 1997 and will be broke, bankrupt, in the year 2002. Now, there are a lot of people watching right now who, like me, will reach the age of 65 by the year 2002, and they have to understand that this is not a Republican suggestion or study that has developed the conclusion that it will go broke by the year 2002. These are the trustees of the Medicare system that were appointed by the President. Now what has the President done since then? Where is the President? He has not even responded to that. And yet, he is adhering to his budget. Only yesterday, he announced he was going to veto the rescissions bill, which was a reduction in spending of $16.4 billion, the largest single reduction, I believe, in the history of this country. He says he is going to veto this reduction, the spending reductions. I think it is just inconceivable that someone who ran for office on reducing spending, someone who ran on a balanced budget for this country, would now come up and say, in this fiscal year of 1995, the rescissions bill that has been proposed and that was passed by a majority of votes in the House and the Senate will be vetoed by the President of the United States. I also think it is necessary for us to reaffirm our commitment to children. I hear over and over again about this program is going to be cut, or that program is going to be cut. Yes, some programs are going to be cut and there are going to be some hardships if we do successfully balance the budget by the year 2002. But we cannot stand up here on the floor, as the Senator from Nevada did a few moments ago, and talk about the fact that every Senator, every one of the 100 Senators here in the U.S. Senate, wants to have a balanced budget by the year 2002 and not do anything today to bring it about. You know, this is an exciting time. Right now, this week, we are going to be debating, and next week we probably will have a vote in both bodies on a budget that will eliminate the deficit by the year 2002. I heard Congressman DeLay talk about the fact that he has been waiting his entire life for this moment to come. And all of those who voted for a major change on November 8, 1994, this is the change. Of all the things that that mandate said to Congress from the American people, it said we want less Government intrusion in our lives. It said that we want to do something about keeping America strong in its defense. But, first and foremost, it said, we want to balance the budget. I had an experience the other day when we had our National Prayer Breakfast. When I left the House, I was president of the House Prayer Breakfast, so I was kind of in charge, I say to the Senator, of the international visitors. There was a gentleman who came into our National Prayer Breakfast from Moldavia. He was beaming from ear to ear. He came up to me and he said, ``Senator, we are so proud. We now have a free economy. We have been under communism for all these years, now we have democracy. But I have a question to ask you. In America, how much can you keep?" And I said, ``I'm sorry, I don't think I understand your question.'' He said, ``In America, how much does the Government take from you?" Then I understood what he was saying, and so I gave him a figure that I would hate to have to stand here and try to justify. But he said, very proudly, ``In Moldavia, when we go out and we earn a dollar, we get to keep 20 cents.'' They have some kind of a periodic collection. At the end of every month, they have to give 80 cents out of every dollar they earn to the Government. He was so proud they had reached that point. I thought how fortunate we are in this country, until I realized and looked at the picture of my two grandchildren. And the CBO, and others in every study, no one has disagreed, said that if we do not do something to change the trend in this country of deficit spending, that anyone who is born today will have to spend 82 percent of his or her lifetime income to support the Government. And that is worse off than they are in Moldavia. So I would just caution you, Mr. President, and others who may hear the stories of the bleeding hearts talking about all these Government programs that are going to be cut, to stop and realize, in most cases, that is not true at all. It is not the case of Social Security, it is not the case of Medicare, it is not the case of Medicaid. And if, in fact, we could actually put a growth cap on Government, as I think one amendment by Senator Gramm is going to attempt to do, of 3.2 [[Page S6853]] percent, we end up balancing the budget without cutting one Federal program and without reducing one Federal program by merely putting caps on. So I think we have to ask ourselves a question, Mr. President, not should we do this this week or next week, but what happens if we do not. Are we going to have another opportunity in the U.S. Senate or the other body to actually come up with a balanced budget? And we have to ask the question: Where will our children be if we do not vote properly? I know there are well-meaning people on the other side of this. They say we want a balanced budget, they want to do something by the year 2002. I would like to do it sooner. Most of us would. But talking is one thing and doing is another thing. It is not going to be easy, but I suggest to you, Mr. President--I know that my time is up and morning business up--I suggest to you, if we do not do it this time, we will probably not be able to do it in our lifetimes. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada and would like to ask this. One of the Senator's statements was that the defining difference, the budget that is adopted in the debate that will take place over the proposed budget that we have from the Republican side will be the defining difference between the two parties. And my question is, Is the Senator taking the budget, the President's budget as your budget and then the Domenici Republican budget as the other, as being the defining two budgets?

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. INHOFE. I agree with the Senator. I have read the Constitution and seen what our job is. And, of course, we had a Republican President with a Democrat Congress at the time the Senator is speaking of. Now it is just the reverse; we have a Democrat President and Republican Congress. Obviously, there will be a difference from the beginning budget. The observation that I would make and would like to ask the Senator about is when we talk about the cuts, talk about the deficits-- and the Senator was talking about the 1993 bill--in 1994, there was a tax increase that was recommended by the Democratic Party and by the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, that was characterized as the largest single tax increase in the history of public finance in America or anywhere in the world. I would like to ask the Senator two questions. He has been talking about the reduction that we are proposing in our bill in taxes, and I would suggest to the Senator that we are not proposing a reduction in taxes from the Senate even though I would personally like to have us do that. It is the House bill that is offering the reductions in their package.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I would like to not have that extend beyond the next 2 minutes because I want the use the last 8 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. No objection.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding a portion of his time. I do not think I will take the 5 minutes. After the trauma and the tragedy that we have gone through in Oklahoma, it has diverted our attention from many of the other significant things that are taking place in this body. I think the most significant thing, second only to that tragedy in Oklahoma, is the tragedy, the revelation that was recently discovered of what is going to happen to Medicare in America and the demagoging that is taking place in this and other bodies concerning that trauma. Specifically, a report was released by the Medicare trustees that has come to the incontrovertible conclusion that our Medicare system, in absence of change, is going to go broke in the year 2002, approximately 6\1/2\ years from now. I think it is important to look and see who was it who looked at the data, who studied the actuarial reports and came to that conclusion. There are six members of the Board of Trustees of Medicare. They are Robert Rubin, the Secretary of the Treasury, who was appointed by President Clinton; Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor, appointed by President Clinton; Donna Shalala, Secretary of HHS, appointed by President Clinton; Shirley Carter, Commissioner of Social Security, appointed by President Clinton; and Stanford Ross and David Walker. Four of the six members are appointments and work in the Clinton administration, and they have come up with the conclusion that Medicare will, in reasons for it, and I will not get into that. Quoting from the report, it says, Medicare is ``severely out of financial balance and the trustees believe that Congress must take timely action to establish long-term financial stability for the program. The trustees believe that prompt, effective and decisive action is necessary.'' Madam President, these are the trustees that were appointed by President Clinton, and what has happened since that time? Absolutely nothing. We have not heard one word out of the Clinton administration. We hear a lot of people criticizing Republicans because we want to do something to save a system, and they come up and say, ``The Republicans are suggesting that they are going to cut Medicare in order to pass a tax reduction.'' Nothing could be further from the truth, and that certainly is not true. But for the President to do nothing in facing this crisis is something that cannot be tolerated. The proposal that has been discussed by the Budget Committee chairman, Senator Domenici from New Mexico, has suggested that we put caps on the system, somewhere around 7 to 7.5 percent growth caps. In other words, the Republican budget is suggesting not that we have cuts in Medicare, but that we have increases in Medicare, but those increases will be capped somewhere between 7 and 7.5 percent, at an amount that has been actuarially determined that we will now have Medicare and it will not go bankrupt in the year 2002. Right now, Madam President, we have some 36 million people on Medicare. It is projected by the time 2002 comes, we will have something like 50 million Americans, 20 percent of all Americans, including myself, will be eligible for Medicare at that time. So I only say, it is time to stop the demagoging. We have a very serious problem on our hands. I believe the Republicans have a solution to that problem, but we should be getting some leadership from the White House at this time. This is not something with which we should be playing politics. I yield back to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I think he said it very well. I think it is very important, and the 11 freshman Members are probably in a better position than anyone else to remind the people that what happened on November 8, 1994 in an appropriate way at the ballot box, was, in fact, a revolution. It is the first time in about 40 years that we have been able to look at Government and redefine its role and answer the question, has Government become involved in more things in a heavyhanded way, than it was intended to be involved in? I know it is the liberal agenda of giving away, having programs for all needs, taking care of everyone from the cradle to the grave, is something that is easy to demagog, but to stand here and know that there are limited resources, I think it is irresponsible to continue that. I think the people in November voted for changes, not so much Republican versus Democrat. Sure, the Republicans took over the House, and they took over the Senate. That is the first time that has happened. The main thing is that we campaigned for things that we have consistently voted for that contradict the behavior of Congress for the past 40 years. When we look at Government's role, we have to ask the question, is Government's responsibility to take care of all the social needs? It is a difficult thing to talk about because it is easy to demagog. I was distressed probably as much as anyone was when the President and others went out and said, well, the Republicans are trying to take the milk away from babies during the nutrition program debate when, in fact, the Republicans were suggesting a 4\1/2\ percent increase. This is very disturbing. The people have awakened in America and they do not buy that kind of talk anymore. They are going to demand changes. I have heard, and there is a perception that the U.S. Senate is operating so slowly, that we are not getting anything done. Now, I suggest, Mr. President, that we operate differently in the Senate, and as one who used to serve in the House of Representatives the same as the Senator from Wyoming, maybe we like the way that operates a little bit better because it is faster. And, the occupant of the chair was also there and knows what I am talking about. On the other hand, there was not a day that went by in the U.S. House of Representatives when I was over there when this conversation did not occur. One would say, ``Are we really quite ready to vote on this? Should we refine it more?'' The answer is always ``Do not worry, the Senate will take care of that.'' For the first time in my life, when I was elected this last time to the U.S. Senate, I realized what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they said they wanted a bicameral system. In fact, we have to slow that train down. How slow has the train been? The agenda, the Contract With America, had 10 items in it. In the House of Representatives, they were able to pass 9 of the 10. The only area that they did not pass was term limitations. In the Senate, in just the first 3 months, we passed congressional accountability, that is forcing Government to live under the same laws we pass. We passed an unfunded mandates bill. As a former mayor of a major city, I can say that the major problem that exists in cities in America today is the fact that the Federal Government tells them what to do but does not send the money down. They are called unfunded mandates. We have passed that major reform here in the U.S. Senate, along with congressional accountability. A line-item veto--we have talked about line-item veto now for a long period of time. Now we have passed it here. We passed a moratorium on endangered species. So we have actually handled about three or four of the major contract items and we are on schedule to handle the rest of them. But I honestly believe it is a responsibility, as the Senator from Wyoming said, of the freshman class, those of us who heard the mandate on November 8, 1994, to keep this train on track and to keep focused. We still have to finish up the rest of the items. Right now, as soon as I leave the floor, I will be going over to the Environment and Public Works Committee hearing. Over there we are handling another one of the contract items; that is, doing something about the heavyhandedness of Government through its EPA regulations: what is happening in this country with the Superfund; what is happening with wetlands; what is happening with endangered species. Oklahoma is somewhat of an agricultural State. As I traveled through, campaigning, I do not remember, of the hundreds of farmers I talked to during the campaign, any of them coming up to me and saying, ``I want to know what the farm bill is going to do. I want to know about price supports.'' What the farmers in Oklahoma and throughout America are concerned about is property rights. That is one of the things we talked about in the Contract With America, that we have the fifth amendment to the Constitution and the 14th amendment to the Constitution that guarantee our property rights, not to lose our property without due process. We all know when farmers have property that is declared to be wetlands, they lose the value of that, and I have every expectation we are going to be able to pass the Private Property Protection Act that is going to guarantee the protection of private property and the value of that property to all Americans. Again, this is one of the contracts. In this same committee meeting we are going to be hearing about the Superfund problems that exist. We know, and it is a fact today, that there are people who have received phone calls and letters from the EPA that have put them out of business for something over which they had no control. One such case was a lumber store owner in Tulsa, OK, by the name of Jim Dunn. He got a letter from the EPA that would have put him out of business, invoking $25,000 a day fines. Checking to see what he was guilty of, we found that for 10 years he used the same person to sell his crankcase oil to. This contractor was licensed by the Federal Government, by the State of Oklahoma, even by the county and City of Tulsa, yet they came back and traced some of that oil to a Superfund site and came to the conclusion that he was liable. In the absence of joint and several reform, he could be liable for the whole amount. And for that he was threatened to be charged a fine of $25,000 a day and possible criminal sanctions. That is the very thing that we are not going to allow to happen. It is the overregulation, the heavyhandedness of Government. The Endangered Species Act--I am very proud the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, was able to get an amendment through on the floor to put some sanity on that, to slow that train down so that, before we add any new critters to the Endangered Species Act, we are able to sit back and look at the cost/benefit of all these things. It was not long ago they decided to put the Arkansas shiner under the Endangered Species Act. Here is a little minnow that I guess they have decided is more important than people are. It would cost the average farmer in Oklahoma who has runoff into the Canadian system about $2,000 to protect this critter. We are all sensitive to the environment and we are sensitive to the need for some controls. But we are not going to allow Government to continue its heavyhanded treatment of its citizens, the people who are out there who are paying for all this fun we are having in Washington. So we have an agenda. Those of us who are the freshmen, the 11 freshmen--I am very pleased we are going to be driving this train, keeping it on track, keeping the focus, and not forgetting. Let me give assurances to everyone out there: We are not going to forget what the mandate was of November 8. I yield the floor now to my very close friend from the House, where I served with him and was elected with him, and now he is a leader in the U.S. Senate, the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl. Taxation, Regulation, Litigation

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this morning, the leader time has been reserved, and there will now be a period for the transaction of morning business, not to extend beyond the hour of 10:15 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each. At 10:15 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 956, the product liability bill. At that time, there will be 60 minutes of debate to be equally divided between the two managers. At the hour of 11:15, the Senate will begin a series of stacked votes on or in relation to second-degree amendments to the Dole amendment. Further rollcall votes can be expected today, and the Senate may be in session into the evening to make progress on the product liability bill. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Ray Stowers, D.O., a constituent of mine. Dr. Stowers, a native Oklahoman, is an osteopathic, family practice physician from Medford, OK, who is a true example of the pioneer spirit in America. In the pioneer spirit, Ray's contributions have resulted in so many ``firsts'' in his life, both for the State of Oklahoma, for the osteopathic medical profession, and for the patients that he has reached into the rural communities to help. It is because of his most recent ``first'', that I rise today to congratulate Ray on his recent appointment to the Physician Payment Review Commission [PPRC]. Ray Stowers represents what is best about medicine and physicians in America today. During a time when the trend to become a specializing physician is so strong and promises such great rewards, Ray Stowers has remained dedicated to the path of providing solo, rural, family medicine for 21 years. Yet from this path, Ray has been able to pioneer programs that enhance the numbers of physicians who share this important commitment. One of Ray's many successes occurred when the Governor of Oklahoma appointed him to serve on the board of the Task Force and Rural Planning Committee which was responsible for advising the Governor on the State's health care manpower needs, and for convening a statewide conference to discuss rural health care delivery issues. As well, Ray had the vision to see Oklahoma's need for rural health clinics, ensuring care for Oklahoma's hardest to reach populations. While he saw the need for, and began, the first rural health clinics in this State, within 5 years that number had burgeoned into 38 rural health clinics. Now, Oklahoma's hard-to-reach and underserved communities are assured access to a doctor and good medical care. In addition to his many appointments, since 1993, Dr. Stowers also has been a presence on the American Medical Association Relative Value Update Committee [RUC]. As the first osteopathic physician appointed to serve on this prestigious committee, Ray has facilitated greater understanding, collaboration, and teamwork between the osteopathic medical profession and the allopathic physician community, and has lent his considerable expertise on physician practices to the RUC proceedings. Dr. Stowers has served his family, his profession, his community, and his State with strength and integrity that symbolizes a modern pioneer. Dr. Stowers, the great State of Oklahoma is proud of your accomplishments. And colleagues in wishing you every success as you embark on your next journey; serving on the Physician Payment Review Commission.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. That is a good point to yield on. If you will forgive me for this observation. I have been watching the debate on this most significant bill. It seems as if we have been hearing from no one except lawyers. And I do not want to lose sight of the fact that this bill is not so much a legal reform as a potential of being the largest jobs bill passed in probably a decade. When the Senator talks about the football helmets, there are so many products that used to be produced exclusively in America that are not produced here any more for that one very reason. You mentioned football helmets. I could name a number of things. But what comes to my mind, in the real world, I was in the field of aviation. In fact, I have the distinction of being the only Member of Congress to ever fly an airplane around the world. I remember, when I did that, going across Europe and seeing where all of the aircraft are being made today that used to be made in America. Prior to 1980, we manufactured about 17,000 single-engine aircraft each year. In the last 4 years, we have averaged about 400 a year. And there is not any big mystery as to why that happened. It happened because you cannot be globally competitive and offset the costs of product liability. In fact, in the other body, when I was in the Aviation Subcommittee, we had a bill up that we were successful in getting passed finally this last year, the Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. We had testimony from Beech Aircraft that the average cost to offset the exposure of product liability was $83,000 a vehicle. Obviously, if you are talking about a large jet aircraft, that $83,000 is not all that significant. But when you are talking about a single-engine plane or a four- passenger aircraft, you cannot be competitive. We actually had the repose bill that I think you remember and you were participating over on this side on it. I remember when Russ Meyer, who is the president of Cessna Aircraft, testified before our committee. Now this is a product liability bill that did one thing. It said that once a manufacturer of an aircraft or of aircraft parts had had that aircraft or those parts functioning as they were designed to function for 18 years, beyond that point they could not be held liable for something that went wrong with the product. They had some exceptions to it. That seemed to be very reasonable. Russ Meyer, the president of Cessna Aircraft, said on the record, ``Inhofe, if you pass that bill, we at Cessna Aircraft will start manufacturing single-engine aircraft which we quit manufacturing in 1986 and we commit that we will manufacture 2,000 airplanes in the first year after the bill is passed after our tooling up.'' That is exactly what has happened. You might remember when Piper Aircraft went into bankruptcy. There was a news conference. The president of Piper said that the reason they went into bankruptcy was because they could not be competitive on a global basis. In fact, they even suggested they could move their tooling up to Canada and make the same airplanes and make a profit, while they could not in this country. Anyway, as a result of all that, we were successful in passing that bill. I remember when it started out as being a 12-year repose and then went to 15 years. When they finally agreed to settle on 18 years, I went to the underwriting community and said, ``I think that is too long.'' They said, ``No.'' The point is there has to be some point in the future in which lawsuits cannot be lodged against manufacturers. It is now a reality. Since that time, Cessna Aircraft has done what they said they would do, they are producing aircraft. I have heard estimates as to how many jobs will be created nationwide, and it is in excess of 25,000 jobs, just in one industry where product liability reform was the cause of the increase in jobs. We know in Kerrville, TX, Mooney is now increasing their production rate by 40 percent. We know that Unison is now making electronic ignition systems. In my State of Oklahoma, there is a single-engine manufacturer whose first model will be coming off the assembly line in the next few weeks. It is a composite single-engine airplane. We know in Nowata, OK, they are making cylinders, all because of one thing. We reformed product liability in one industry and that industry happened to be the aircraft industry. So I think sometimes when we become too theoretical and try to guess what the future will bring if we do this, this is an actual case as to how many jobs in America are being created as a result of product liability reform only in one industry. I was very glad to be a part of that, and you were, too. I certainly think that is the most convincing evidence that we should expand that to other manufactured items.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for the time. As he stated, in just a few minutes, Senator Nickles and I will make some comments concerning a resolution that will be voted on at noon today having to do with the disaster that struck Oklahoma less than a week ago. However, I do think on this subject of the agenda that there is a misconception that is floating around out there that the Senate has not been doing anything because most of the focus has been on the other body. And it is understandable, because that is where most of the activity was. Procedurally, things happen quicker in the House than they do in the Senate. For those of us who have served in the House of Representatives and are now serving in the U.S. Senate, I can understand for the first time in my lifetime why our Founding Fathers perceived that we should have a bicameral system. And, in fact, things are more deliberate here. And I think it is, without pointing any fingers or being critical, that many things pass the House of Representatives with the understanding that they know that it will get a more thorough examination when it gets to the Senate. But, having said that, I would have to say that the Senate has done an incredible amount of work. While I cannot document it, I would suggest that the Senate has accomplished more in the first 90 days or the first 100 days of this session than they have at any other time. We passed the line-item veto. We passed congressional accountability, forcing Members of Congress to live under the same laws that they pass. We passed unfunded mandates. Those of us who have previously been mayors of major cities understand that that is a major problem facing the cities and other political subdivisions around the country. And we have done that. We have had moratoriums passed. I really believe that the Senate has acted responsibly, but in a much more deliberative way. Now the time has been pretty much occupied on what are we going to do on the budget. I think it is somewhat tragic, and I have to be critical of our President. When he talks about the deficit reduction, he makes comments as if we are actually doing something about reducing the debt. And it is a matter of terminology, that if there is anything that can come from this debate, I hope that the American people, and I think they are, are aware right now that we are talking about two different things when you talk about debt and deficit. In fact, the President's budget that has come in has built into it deficits each year that will have a dramatic increase on our Nation's debt. I am still of the belief that we in Congress, in both Houses of Congress, as well as the administration, are incapable of fiscally disciplining ourselves in the absence of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And I really believe it is going to happen. Of course, it did pass the other body, and it lacked one vote of passing in the U.S. Senate. I would remind those who share my concern for this nonpassage that it is under a motion for reconsideration and that we are going to be able to do something about it, I believe, before this term is over. So, Mr. President, Senator Nickles will be joining me in just a moment and we will have an opportunity to talk a little bit about the tragedy that struck my State of Oklahoma. I yield back my time. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, 5 days ago we had a disaster that occurred in Oklahoma. I happened at the time to be in Dallas in a regional meeting on base closure when I got a call from the President of the United States. At that time, the entire Nation, only hours after the blast, was watching as the smoke still had not yet cleared. The President advised me as to what the Federal Government was doing. He told me about the FEMA team that was coming in, about the FBI, about law enforcement, all having to do with the tragedy, and asked if there was anything more that I could think of that could be done from the Federal level. Of course, I told the President there was nothing else I could think of that could happen, and I proceeded back to Oklahoma. When you see something like this that happens and you see the resources that are poured in from the Federal Government, the State government, the city government, but then most of all from the individuals, it is, indeed, heart warming. I agree with Billy Graham, during the memorial service, when he made the statement that it draws us together, it brings out the best in people when a tragedy of this nature takes place. It is one thing to watch it on the television, and it is another thing to experience it knowing that you have personal friends that are personal friends that are inside the building. It was 5 days ago--5 days and 1 hour ago--that the blast went off. When you look at the building and see that it happened from the north side, the lower half of the building on the south side is still intact to some degree. I have hope and faith that there will be some individuals who are still alive in the building. But when I think back and remember the 4 days that I spent over there, some of the experiences that we have had are very difficult to describe. My son is an orthopedic surgeon. There is a doctor who practices with him. The doctor had to go in and amputate a lady's leg, in order to extract her alive from the rubbish--it was a decision that she had to make--with no anesthetic. Do you want to die or do you want us to take your leg off and pull you out? And she chose the leg. On the first night when the rains came and it turned cold, I watched in cadence some 200 firemen marching down with all their regalia on-- their crash helmets, their fire suits, their boots--knowing that 40 at a time would have to go inside this building and crawl around on their hands and knees, not knowing whether the structure of the building would hold up and allow them to remain alive. They did risk their lives. I was told that there was not one that went in that was ordered in. They all volunteered to do it. As you know, we have lost some lives of those who have been a part of the medical and rescue teams. During this time, we had an occasion to look at where do we go from here? I was asked by the President 2 hours after the blast, ``What could be done to preclude something like this from happening?'' I have come to the conclusion that nothing in terms of added security or nothing in terms of taking away more freedoms is going to preclude some mad person from doing something like this if he has his mind set on doing it. This was a mobile unit, it was an explosion put together using fertilizer, using things that are certainly legal on the market. And if we were to take those things off the market, they would find something else, we know that. It would just make it more challenging to them. I think that if we try to approach this providing more security, we are wasting our time. However, I do think there are some things that can be done. Senator Nickles, Senator Dole and I have submitted a resolution which we will be voting on in just a few minutes. The resolution calls for condemning the violence in the strongest possible terms. We send condolences to the families. It applauds the rescue workers and supports the death penalty and commends the President and the Attorney General for their quick action. But it also pledges to approve legislation to combat terrorism. I remember in 1990 when we had the airport security bill. I had an amendment on the floor--at that time, it was in the other body--to have the death penalty in cases where a terrorist was carrying out a hijacking and it resulted in a death. You never heard so many bleeding hearts in your life standing up saying, ``You can't do that, that's inhumane.'' I believe something like that today will pass. While nothing good comes from tragedies like this, if anything good were to come, it would be that we are going to be able to get tough on these guys and actually punish them. I look at our system--I am not a lawyer--but when I see Roger Dale Stafford, of the Sirloin Stockade murder, sitting there watching color TV year after year, when I see that it takes an average of 9\1/2\ years to carry out an execution, then something is wrong. I had a debate during the course of this with Mr. Ron Cubie, who is the defense lawyer in the World Trade Center case. He was contending that the 1994 crime bill was one that could take care of problems like this, that it provided the death penalty in case of terrorism. That is not true. The 1994 crime bill was a farce. It did not provide any exclusionary rule reform. It did not provide any habeas corpus reform. So while they had on record the death penalty, they did not do anything about the endless delays that keeps the invocation of the death penalty from becoming a reality. That being the case, there is no deterrent. It is no deterrent for a terrorist who is proposing to do something as was done in Oklahoma 5 days ago. If he thinks the very worst scenario, the worst thing that can happen to him, is that he is going to wait 9\1/2\ years and then be executed, he looks at our system and laughs at our system. I am one of those rare individuals who honestly believes in his own heart that punishment is a deterrent to crime. And when we wait for the punishment, long delayed periods, many of those people are waiting in an environment that is more livable than the environment that they are accustomed to. And to many of the people who might be involved from some other nations, Middle Eastern nations, that is not a deterrent. I have long sensed, in the years that I spent in the other body, that one of the problems we have in combating crime in this country is that the majority of people in Congress prior to the election of November 8 honestly did not believe in their hearts that punishment was a deterrent to crime. Now we have the ACLU and these organizations sitting around saying that we are so concerned about these poor people who are involved in these crimes. We have been much more concerned about the criminals than we have been about the victims. Mr. President, that is something that is going to change. Maybe it took this tragedy in Oklahoma to make that change. I suspect that is the case. There are some bills that have been introduced prior to this tragedy--one was introduced by Senators Biden and Specter--that are going to do something about our ability to use resources out there to bring people to justice. Wiretapping for law enforcement officers to use. Is that an invasion of privacy? Yes, maybe it is. But somebody has to do something about it. We have a lot of procedural things that can be done that are addressed in that legislation that I think should pass. I think the resolution submitted by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, and our majority leader, Senator Dole, and others, is going to set the stage for the passage of tough legislation, providing tough and swift penalties for those people in America that are involved in terrorist activities or those people who are proposing to become involved in any other crime. I think that it may be that we will look back 10 years from now and say that because of those individuals that died painful deaths out in Oklahoma, maybe that resulted in doing something about crime in America. I do not think that it is over yet. As we speak today, there are firefighters and rescue workers crawling through the rubbish on their hands and knees, hearing the cracks. When you walk by, as Senator Nickles and I did, and see the human flesh that is on jagged pieces of iron--my office is located three blocks away, my Senate office in Oklahoma City. Our windows were blasted out. It is very difficult to explain to people the magnitude of that explosion--one that they originally said was a 1,200-pound explosion. They now say it had to be 5,000 pounds. To put that in perspective, in World War II, that was about 10 of the largest nonatomic bombs they used in the war. And this was all perpetrated by one or two deranged minds, who somehow feel people had to be murdered to prove some type of a point. Lastly, I am going to hope that those individuals--and there are some around--who would try to exploit this tragedy into saying that we were wrong in the elections of 1994 in rebelling against some of the intrusions into our lives by Government, or that somehow this philosophy is tied into this far extreme fringe right wing that appears to be responsible for this tragedy, when in fact the revolution, as I have referred to it, that took place in the ballot box on November 8, 1994, should not be reversed and people should not try to exploit this tragedy in reversing it. Finally, I want to commend those who have joined me and those whom I have joined in putting together this resolution. I am sure it will pass at noon today. I think that will be the predicate for doing something very meaningful about this type of activity in America. As we speak, there is a funeral taking place in Oklahoma City. It is for a daughter of a very close, personal friend of Don Nickles and myself. There will be many more funerals. I sure that all the Nation grieves with us. I have been called by people not just from all over the Nation but all over the world. We should take any action necessary to make sure that something like this does not happen again. It has been said many times that if it can happen in the heartland of America, in Oklahoma City, it could happen anywhere. No one is immune. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the idea is that nobody benefits from a capital gains tax or some of these tax reductions until they have actually provided a stimulus to the economy. For example, if you have a capital gains tax, the individual who will eventually benefit from that tax cannot benefit until he has already started a company, already invested his money, already met a payroll, and already hired people. What the liberals in Congress refuse to recognize is that for each 1 percent increase in economic activity in America, it produces an additional $24 billion of new revenue. I am so sick and tired of sitting on the floor here listening to the liberal Members of Congress talk about how it did not work in the 1980's, how we tried tax reductions in the 1980's and look what happened to the deficit. Well, the deficit went up during that decade, but up because the Members of the House and the Senate have an insatiable appetite to spend money that is not theirs and are borrowing it from future generations. I will give you an example. Back in 1980, the total revenues that were derived from the marginal tax rates in America were $244 billion. Then, in 1990, the total revenues that were derived from the marginal tax rates in America were $466 billion. What happened during that 10- year period? During that 10-year period, we had the greatest tax reductions in this Nation's history. Remember, the highest rate went down from 70 percent to 28 percent. We had capital gains tax reductions. We had reductions all the way down so that people knew they could keep more of the money that they made. This stimulated people to invest in equipment, in company, in employment, and it did, to borrow a phrase that is often abused by our President, it did ``grow America.'' So we almost doubled the revenue during that 10-year period when we had the largest tax reduction. I would like to mention one of the things that I told the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, that I would make a reference to; that is, the moral issue that we are dealing with right now. I gave a talk not long ago where I had the pictures of two beautiful children on an easel behind me. Those two beautiful children I identified in the first hour as being my two grandchildren, Glade and Maggie. Each of them will be celebrating their second birthday this month. They are beautiful little children. When people talk about the programs they say are going to be cut when we have passed a balanced budget amendment--and we will try to reach a balanced budget--and they try to pull on the heartstrings of America and say that all these great, wonderful Government social programs are going to be cut, they neglect to tell you who is really going to be punished by these programs, who is really going to be punished if we do not do something to bring the budget into balance, which we are going to do. And I do not want to sound partisan here, but by Republicans taking over the House and the Senate, you are going to see some cuts. You are going to see come growth caps. But you will see our budget come back into balance, and we are targeting right now the year 2002. Let us look at what is going to happen if we do not do this in America. According to the CBO and all the other analysts, where are we in America today if we do not have some type of a change in the program that we have had? They have said that, if we continue to go on as we have gone in the past, if we do not pass a balanced budget amendment, if we do not bring it into balance, that a person who is born today, during his or her lifetime, will have to pay 82 percent of his or her lifetime income for taxes to support the Government programs. Stop and think about that. The other day, we had an interesting visitor. We had a number of visitors from all over the world. This was during the National Prayer Breakfast. We had people from all over the world there. I was in charge of a group of the national visitors from the Ukraine, from Eastern Europe and some of that area. One man was here from Moldavia. He asked me a very interesting question. He said, ``Senator Inhofe, here in the United States, how much can you keep?'' I said, ``Pardon me? I do not understand what you are saying.'' He said, ``Well, when you earn something, how much do you have to give the Government?'' I said, ``Well, that is a real interesting question.'' I kind of established a guess because there is not really a very simple answer to that question when you stop and think about what the Government really absorbs. But he said, ``We are celebrating in Moldavia. We are so thrilled that finally, after all these years of communism, we now have a free economy. We now have a free society. We now can own property. We now can buy businesses and we can work hard and pass on to future generations that which we reap.'' I said, ``In your country, how much do you have to give the Government?'' He said, very proudly, ``We get to keep 20 percent.'' I said, ``How does that work?'' He said, ``Well, when you earn money, if you earn a dollar, you have to give 80 cents of that dollar to the Government.'' They do not wait until year end, Mr. President. This is something that is ongoing. And then we looked around at each other and thought, here are these people, seeking their freedom, so excited about this, they are all through with communism, and they can benefit and they can enrich themselves and future generations and how happy they were, and yet they have to give to Government 80 percent of what they have. Mr. President, that brings it really to the surface of where we are today. If we do not do something to change this path, we will be behind Moldavia. It will cost our future generations 82 cents on the dollar. So I would like to think that this is not a fiscal issue. It is a moral issue. We are going to see in the next few weeks the Republicans coming out in the House and the Senate with a program, with a budget, a proposed budget that would eliminate the deficit by the year 2002. I disagree with the way we are doing it. I hate to be the one who disagrees with my own party. I have talked to different people who are on the Budget Committee, and I say I think we are making a mistake when we come out with a budget and say exactly where we are going to cut programs, where we are going to expand programs. Why not do what we know would work? Let us put spending caps on. If we initiate a resolution that says we are not going to let any Government program increase more than 2 percent, we would not touch one program, not have a reduction in one program, not have elimination of one program, and we would be able to balance the budget by the year 2002. That is because--and most people do not realize it and you are not going to hear it said by a lot of the liberals here in Congress--our problem is not where to cut programs but how to stop the accelerated growth. And when you hear people like the President standing up and saying proudly, ``We are cutting the deficit,'' that is garbage. There is an article everyone should read. It was in the Reader's Digest last year. It was called ``Budget Baloney.'' And in it they described how Members of Congress say they are cutting the deficit. They described it this way: They say let us say you have $5,000 but you want to buy a $10,000 car. All you have to say is I really want a $15,000 car, but I will settle for a $10,000 car and I have cut the deficit by $5,000. That is the way they do things around here. Let me suggest to you that there is going to be a come-home-to-roost time. There is going to be a time when these individuals who have habitually voted for expanded Government into our lives and are not a part of the revolution of November 8 are going to have to come back and take the consequences. I would like to show you just two charts that we put together back when we were debating the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This chart shows the characterization of those Members of the Senate who were voting for an amendment called the Right To Know Act. Now, what this was was an amendment to the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and it said show us exactly where you are going to cut every program. Obviously, you cannot do that 7 years in the future. But we analyzed the voting behavior of the 41 Senate cosponsors of this bill. We find that every one of them voted yes on the $16 billion President Clinton tax stimulus program which was the largest increase in spending that we have had in one bill, I believe, in the history of the Congress; that every one of the 41 who had signed on as cosponsors to this amendment was ranked by the National Taxpayers Union as either a D or an F. In other words, the people who were behind this were the people who were the big spenders in Congress. Then the most revealing chart is the one that shows what is going to happen to a lot of these people by showing what did happen to them in the revolution of November 8. On November 8, there were either defeated or retired in the Senate eight Senators. Of the eight Senators, all eight voted for the spending increase. This was the spending increase that put all kinds of subsidized programs in voted for the tax increase. The tax increase was the 1993 tax increase that President Clinton had. It was characterized as the largest single tax increase in the history of public finance in America or any place in the world, and those are not the words of conservative Republican Jim Inhofe. Those are the words of Patrick Moynihan, who at that time was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Further down here they all had either D or F ratings by the National Taxpayers Union. In other words, they were the big spenders, and those are the ones who were defeated. They are not here. Look around. They are not here. In the House of Representatives, 66 of them went out. Almost all of the 66 voted yes on the stimulus bill, voted yes on the tax increase, and had a D or F rating by the National Taxpayers Union. So I just suggest to you, Mr. President, that we make it abundantly clear to the liberals in Congress, the few liberals who are left, because most of them were wiped out in the November 8 revolution, there is going to be another wave coming up in 1996, and this is the opportunity for us to be fiscally responsible, for us to be able to stand up and say no to some of these useless programs that have outlived their usefulness and say yes to future generations, including my two grandchildren, Glade and Maggie Inhofe. This is what is going to work for America, and this is probably the centerfold of the revolution of November 8. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a couple of questions? First of all, let me applaud the Senator from New York for bringing this to the attention of the American people. I have been presiding and listening, and join the Senator in offering this amendment. I applaud him for it. But I would like to back up a little ways and recall something to see if the Senator from New York agrees with this; that when Carlos Salinas first went in the perception was that his policies were stabilizing the economy, the peso was stable, and all of a sudden we had investors from Europe and other places who had never theretofore bought Mexican debt. So they came in. Then we had a meeting on the 6th of January--the Senator from New York I believe was attending that meeting of both the House and the Senate with the administration--with many officials, including Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and others, at which time I asked the question: Since we are obviously protecting new investors who have bought Mexican debt, who are buying debt and being paid somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 to 25 percent, which implies to me that there are some risks involved, where are the European countries in joining us behind the guarantees of this debt? The answer was yes, they would be behind us. The question I have for the Senator from New York is that has been 2 or 3 months ago now. Has he heard of any of the European countries who have now joined us in underwriting the guarantees?