Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. It is important to set that standard. We set that standard. We do it with the understanding that we know not everybody can meet that standard. We give the States and the communities, and, I hope, and the Governors assure me, this is not going to be just one Federal bureaucratic program transferred to 50 State bureaucratic programs. Frankly, I am not that much comforted, I am somewhat comforted, but not significantly comforted, to know that this is a Federal program run by Federal bureaucrats that now is going to be a State program run by State bureaucrats. State bureaucrats may be marginally better than Federal bureaucrats, but that is not enough. The Governors understand, at least the ones that are talking to me, that they need to go further. They need to get down into the local communities, into the nonprofit organizations, into the folks who really have compassion, because it is their neighbors and their friends they are providing for. Those are the organizations we have to empower through this bill, and give them the resources to solve the problems that are in their community. We believe this is a vehicle with the flexibility that is in this bill to make that happen. I want to talk about just a couple of other things. No. 1, child care. It has been argued on this floor, and I think well argued on this floor by Members, frankly, on both sides of the aisle, that the key to making work work is child care. That there are millions of women out there who would like to go to work but because of the barrier for safe, affordable day care, they simply cannot do it. We provide $4 billion more in child care in this bill than under current law, and even more money than what the President is suggesting. Under this bill, work will work, and people will be able to succeed. The other two things I will quickly go through, first is child support enforcement. There is uniform agreement on both sides to improve, toughen child support enforcement, including wage withholding, and is included in here, among other things. This gets back to, again, requiring fathers to take responsibility for their children. Again, setting the bar high, but, my goodness, we should have standards high for fathers when it comes to providing for their children. Finally, the issue of noncitizens. The Senator from New York said no civilized society would cut off these benefits for noncitizens like we do in this bill. He is absolutely right. Do you know why? Because there is no civilized society that provides the benefits in the first place. We are the only society that gives benefits to people who are in this country who are not citizens of the country. What we are saying is we will provide benefits to refugees, to asylees, but to people who come in under sponsorship agreements, the sponsors, who signs that document will be the one who takes care of them, not the Federal Government.

Mr. SANTORUM. Five minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM. Or a child 16 years hold who can work.

Mr. SANTORUM. Or a child 17 years old who can. We can go back and forth. But the fact is we are talking about all children; that is, under 18. The point I am trying to make is, the question I am trying to have answered here is, if it is under five years, you mandate that the State provide a voucher to someone who is unwilling to work.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SANTORUM. The second question is on the vouchers issue, and the Senator from Louisiana, while he responded to a question was not responding to my question. He was responding to the provision in his amendment, not the provision in the amendment before us. You suggest the Republican bill forbids vouchers after 5 years.

Mr. SANTORUM. Yes--going into this system, increasing up to 70 percent over the next 5 years. Within that category, 20 percent are exempted for hardship. That means they can go beyond the 5 years and still receive Federal dollars after 5 years. We are talking about a limited number of people who are able-bodied, who have had 5 years, who are not designated by the State as hardship. That is not a high hurdle to get over.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Can you tell me what page that is on?

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent to have 40 minutes equally divided on the Graham motion without a second-degree amendment in order.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a constituent and fellow Pennsylvanian, Dr. Thomas J. Balshi. For almost a quarter of a century, Thomas J. Balshi, a fellow of the American College of Prosthodontists, has enhanced the health of thousands of individuals worldwide by contributions to research, education, and the clinical practice of prosthetic dentistry. Dr. Balshi is a pioneer in the field of implant prosthodontics and operates a state-of-the-art dental clinic in Fort Washington, PA. Dr. Balshi and his staff of 23 have touched the lives of many, replacing countless lost, damaged, or diseased teeth with secure, permanent prosthetic smiles. Dr. Balshi specializes in saving dental cases diagnosed as hopeless and has renewed dental health, nutritional health, and self-confidence for many. Dr. Balshi is a recent recipient of the prestigious George Washington Medal of Honor from the National Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge, PA. This award was bestowed to honor Dr. Balshi's contributions to dental science through education. The Freedoms Foundation honors Americans whose lives reinforce and exhibit the patriotic values of our country's Founding Fathers. In his youth, Thomas Balshi was an Eagle Scout. He later graduated from the Villanova University in 1968, and, following graduation from Temple University School of Dentistry in 1972, became a fellow of the American College of Prosthodontists [FACP] in 1976. A former captain in the U.S. Army, Dr. Balshi was chief, Department of Fixed Prosthetics, Mills Army Dental Clinic, Fort Dix, NJ. He received the Army Commendation Medal for Extraordinary Service. Today, he is a clinician, teacher, mentor, researcher, public educator, and devotee of health care. He welcomes students from around the world to his clinic, teaching them not only his clinical skills, but also his business skills as well. He is committed to making the public aware of quality dental care. Dr. Balshi has trained a specialist from Bosnia-Herzogovina to bring healing and restoration to the war-torn population where United States military service personnel are now keeping the peace. He has championed the benefits of prosthetic care throughout India, Uruguay, and Colombia, and has spoken before the Royal Society of Medicine in London. Serving as editor of the International College of Prosthodontists Newsletter for its inaugural 10 years, Dr. Balshi actively participated in establishing worldwide communication among practitioners of his specialty. He recently published a cookbook for dental patients entitled ``From Soup to Nuts.'' The book offers soft and nutritious gourmet recipes for healing patients, as well as keys to returning to dental fitness and the recipes that accompany that opportunity. Dr. Balshi continues a very giving and philanthropic presence in the community awarding scholarships as the chair of educational foundations as well as giving countless time and dental care resources to charity. Mr. President, I wanted to share Dr. Balshi's background and experiences with my Senate colleagues today. I hope you will all join me in honoring and recognizing his presence and contributions.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from Alaska yield for another question?

Mr. SANTORUM. What rights, then, do they lose if that occurs?

Mr. SANTORUM. If they allow the bill to come up, will there be a cloture vote at 10 on Tuesday on the nuclear waste bill?

Mr. SANTORUM. I am trying to understand the rights that might be given up. If the Senators from Nevada do not allow the Defense bill to come up, will there be a cloture vote on the nuclear waste bill at 10 o'clock on Tuesday?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the recently completed Two Rivers Landing Visitor Center located in Easton, PA. On July 16, 1996 a new state-of-the-art cultural visitor center will open its doors to the public permitting visitors to experience the unique wonders of Easton and its surrounding communities. The visitor center embodies a highly successful public-private partnership between the Federal Government, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, private industry, community leaders and local lenders. The Two Rivers Landing Visitor Center represents the anchor project in the Easton Economic Development Corporation's strategic plan for revitalizing Easton. Primarily, the visitor center will celebrate the historic accomplishments of Binney & Smith, Inc., makers of Crayola crayons through a Crayola Factory display. In addition, the visitor center will highlight the natural beauty and assets of the Easton region through a National Canal Museum and National Heritage Corridor and State Heritage Parks Center. Unquestionably, the highlight of the Two Rivers Landing Visitor Center will be the Crayola factory. The factory will allow visitors the opportunity to experience first-hand how a Crayola crayon is molded, labeled, and packaged. The Crayola factory component will allow visitors the opportunity to creatively interact with Crayola products in a range of different mediums. Mr. President, for generations Americans of all ages have experienced the joy and magic of Crayola crayons. Crayola crayons have become a part of our lives not only as children, but also as parents and grandparents. It is estimated that 20,000 visitors travel to the Binney & Smith, Inc. Forks Township, PA manufacturing facility each year to witness the creation of these crayons. The number of visitors is even more astounding when one realizes that the current manufacturing plant tour uses no advertising or promotions whatsoever. With these facts in mind, I hope my colleagues will join me in observing a National Day of Color in honor of this opening. I hope that the visitors center will also act as a local hub to direct tourists to the region's other enriching attractions--children's shows and performances at the nearby State Theater, the canal boat ride and locktender's house located at Huge Moore Park, the fish ladder on the Delaware River, activities occurring at Lafayette College, local restaurants, local retailers, other regional events, and Bushkill Park. Mr. President, it has been 3 years since proposals were unveiled to create a visitor center that would help revitalize downtown Easton. Those who have had the privilege to tour the facility prior to its grand opening indicate that the facility has successfully captured the spirit and history of the Easton region. The Two Rivers Landing Visitor Center will expose many new visitors to the rich heritage of Easton, while at the same time, stimulating the economy of the region. I would like to congratulate the parties involved in this undertaking on a job well done.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my colleague from Colorado and I commend him for his continued leadership in this important area. This amendment attempts to move the administration along in the United States' effort to help our allies in Europe with their admission into NATO. The administration has continued to say that they support efforts to expand NATO. They say it is not a question of whether we expand NATO, it is a question of how and when. I believe that the real issue is whether or not the free men and women that comprise our NATO membership will stand idly by if the security and independence of Central Europe is threatened. NATO today remains the core of American engagement in Europe and at the heart of European security. It is our most effective instrument for coordinating defense and arms control and maintaining stability throughout Europe. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the progress of European integration have not ended the need for NATO's essential commitment to safeguard the freedom and security of all of its members. We must continue to move forward on NATO expansion and not allow other non-NATO countries to continue to exercise veto power over alliance expansion. The time has come to welcome Europe's new democracies into NATO. Only through a continued strong alliance can we guarantee another 50 years of peace in Europe. I am proud to say that I have joined my colleague from Colorado along with our former majority leader Bob Dole, in taking a bold new step forward in our efforts to move the administration further in their policy. S. 1830, the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996, is the third NATO Participation Act offered by Congress. It specifically names three countries--Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--as qualifying for the program and requires the President to designate other emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe if they meet the necessary criteria. The demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has presented NATO with new challenges and new opportunities. The international environment is fraught with prospects for conflict and instability. The countries that re-emerged from the ruins of the Soviet Empire as free societies now look to membership in NATO. These newly free countries have already fought and suffered to earn the right to their territorial integrity, independence, democracy, and free enterprise--precisely the values that NATO has maintained in the West for almost 50 years. At long last, the pro-Western nations of Central Europe now have the opportunity and the will to help us promote those values and to defend them. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to take a few minutes to remember an American soldier who lost his life while serving his country. This remembrance is appropriate given the Senate's consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill this week. This bill sets priorities for defense spending over the course of the next fiscal year. Frequently, this annual debate becomes bogged down in a discussion of weapons systems and defense contracts. Seemingly lost in this debate are the very men and women who serve in our Armed Forces; soldiers like U.S. Army Sgt. Michael Sean Smith who have sacrificed their lives in the line of duty. Mr. President I rise to pay tribute to Sergeant Smith. Sergeant Smith died March 12, 1991, while serving his country in the Persian Gulf war. Sergeant Smith is survived by his wife Carmen, two children, and nine siblings, and is remembered fondly as a unique, friendly, and loving individual. As a medic with the 36th Medical Detachment, he faithfully served the United States with honor and integrity. Sergeant Smith's death represents a great loss, not only to his loved ones, but also to this Nation. It is through his ultimate sacrifice that we may all gain strength to be steadfast in our commitment, conviction, and dedication to our country as individual citizens, service men and women, and even members of the U.S. Senate. It is with solemn respect that I ask my colleagues to remember a fallen hero--Sgt. Michael Sean Smith. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as the Chairman knows, the Senate Appropriations Committee has provided $20 million in the fiscal year 97 Department of Defense Appropriations bill in the area of telemedicine. The Armed Services Committee, under the strong leadership of Senator Thurmond, has for several years recognized the importance of military research, development, and implementation of telemedicine. It has also given value to the idea of working in partnership with non-governmental entities in this area. My own home State of Pennsylvania has a strong interest in this area and is developing several new and exciting programs to assist our military health care capabilities. I encourage the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee to closely examine these new technologies and look forward to his continued involvement in this area.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I think it is interesting to, first, understand why this bill is being held up. It is being held up--at least the reason given that it is being held up--because there is an objection to the concept about the proposal known as medical savings accounts. Now, I have had town meetings about medical savings accounts ever since I first introduced a medical savings account bill. I was the first Member of the House to do so in January 1992. I had been holding town meetings in the Pittsburgh area when I was a Congressman, as well as across Pennsylvania. I consistently find one thing--most people do not know what medical savings accounts are. The few that do, when I ask them to explain them, usually do not do a very good job explaining what they are. Let us explain what is the big holdup here. Why are medical savings accounts so bad? What do they threaten? What damage can they do? How will they disrupt the health care system? Why is this such a horrible thing that we can hold up what most Members--in fact, I think all Members--would like to see done and believe needs to be done to help the current system be better. That is what the Kassebaum- Kennedy bill does. It improves the current system of health care delivery in the private market health insurance system. So let us ask what medical savings accounts do. Well, I like to call medical savings accounts patient choice accounts, because I think those who are tuned into what is going on in health care will tell you--and I am not talking just health care providers or insurers, I am talking about everybody who sees what is going on in health care--realizes that managed care is coming to dominate the marketplace and, in fact, will be, eventually, I believe, if nothing is done, take over the marketplace in most areas of the country. So the choices will be limited to just managed care options. The old fee-for-service, doctor- patient relationship in medicine will go by the wayside. What I believe medical savings accounts do is give us a chance to keep that relationship available to patients who want that, to people who want the doctor-patient relationship. And what managed care is, you have a doctor, a patient, and you have a third party, an insurance company, who sort of regulates the transaction between doctor and patient. They are the ones who sort of dictate what services you can and cannot have. Well, before managed care, the doctor and patient determined what services you had. Well, the problem with that was that neither had incentive to control costs. On the patient's side, you had fee-for-service medicine with very low deductibles, so you did not pay anything for the services you got. You had no concern about how much they cost. Nobody asked how much it costs for health care. On the physician's side, the more you did, the more services you provided, the less chance you were going to be sued, and the more money you made. So there were no incentives here to control costs. Then managed care came in. Well, what we are trying to do with medical savings accounts is very simple--that is, to put some incentives with the patient to be cost conscious, to encourage them to be careful about what kind of health care services they consume and how much they consume and where they consume them, to create some sort of a marketplace for health care. That is what medical savings accounts do. I can explain the specifics of how it works, but the bottom line is that it empowers, it gives the individual the ability to control their own health care decisions again. It gives power to individual patients when it comes to their health care needs. Now, why--why--would anyone be against giving an option to individuals? It does not require everyone to take a medical savings account, by any stretch of the imagination. It does not require anything. It just gives you an option to have a medical savings account. Why would anyone be opposed to giving individuals powers to make medical decisions on their own, giving individual power in America? I think you sort of have to step back and say, well, let us recall who were moving forward with the Clinton care health plan and what that plan did. What Clinton care did--sponsored by the Senator from Massachusetts--was take power from individuals, give it to Government- run organizations, and private sector insurance organizations, to manage care for everyone--big organizations controlling decisions of people. That is the model that many who were opposing this bill see as what we should be doing with health care. They do not believe--as Mrs. Clinton said, when asked about medical savings accounts--that individuals have the ability to make decisions on their own, that you are not informed enough, educated enough to make your own health care decisions. There are people--and I hope and believe it is not a majority in this body--who believe that we need large organizations, whether it is Government or large insurance companies, to dictate to you what services are available to you. That is the fundamental debate here. That is the rub; that is the reason we are not moving forward with this. It is, who has the power to make decisions? The Senator from Massachusetts believes it is large insurance companies or big Government. Those of us on this side of the aisle--and I think many on the other side of the aisle--believe individuals should at least have the choice to make those decisions themselves. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words regarding the amendment offered by myself along with Senators Nunn and Kyl pertaining to the Computer Emergency Response Team [CERT]. CERT is located in Pittsburgh at the Carnegie Mellon University's Software Engineering Institute [SEI] in my home State of Pennsylvania. This amendment would allocate an additional $2 million to be given to CERT to maintain their funding profile. When the SEI established its emergency response team in 1988, three members of the SEI technical staff were assigned to respond to computer security incidents on the Internet. Nearly 8 years later, use of the Internet has grown by 2,500 percent, and there has been a 2,000-percent increase in the number of network intrusions. The number of computer emergencies that CERT has responded to has grown as well, from 32 in 1989 to 2,500 in 1995. However, due to past congressional actions which have imposed ceilings on federally-funded research and development centers, SEI and specifically CERT, has only been able to expand by nine people, limiting their ability to perform essential services. The invaluable contribution that CERT has provided under the stewardship of the SEI has been highlighted nationally more than 60 times by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, as well as featured on the CBS show ``60 Minutes.'' Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment and am hopeful that this issue of ceilings will be addressed during the House-Senate conference on this bill.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I also want to commend the Senator from New Hampshire for offering that amendment. I know it is not germane to the defense authorization bill, yet I think it is important that we begin to discuss some very serious issues that I think deserve to be debated and discussed here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I was just made aware that the other partner in crime or potential partner in crime, Mr. Marceca, just announced that he has made available 300 additional files, in addition to the 481; there are now 300 additional files, some of them national security files, that he has now made available and has just showed up on an AP wire. This issue continues to get broader and broader and broader and more and more files trickling out. Frankly, not much has been said here on the floor of the U.S. Senate one way or another. I can say this is an important issue. This is an important issue beyond the politics of it. It is an important issue of who has access to secure documents? Who has access to national security documents? And what are they doing with those documents? How to we treat people who do things with those documents? Who ordered them to do it? Who else knew about it? I like to think that Mr. Livingstone, maybe, was just a wild guy acting on his own, and Marceca was another one of these wild men who was off doing his own thing. I know a little bit about how things function in this town, and there are very few things that are run independently. Now we are seeing this list getting broader and broader and information trickling out. We still have 2,000 pages under subpoena in the House that the Executive Office is claiming privilege over. By the way, they claim ``privilege'' over the original 1,000 documents, of which this file information was uncovered. If they claimed that under the original 1,000, what is in the 2,000 they are holding on to? Maybe some of these national security documents that are now being discussed or mentioned in these 2,000 documents being held by the White House under claim of Executive privilege. I commend the Senator from New Hampshire for bringing this issue to the floor, for talking about the firing of Mr. Livingstone, but I do not think we want to make Mr. Livingstone to be the heavy here. The fact of the matter is this was a man who was trusted by very high-up people in the White House. George Stephanopoulos said this is a man who ``knows how to get things done.'' If he only knew. Or maybe he did know. I do not know. Those are the kind of things I think we should be discussing here and we should be investigating here. I think the Senator from New Hampshire's resolution was, frankly, pretty mild. I suspect if we had a public vote on that resolution--and the reason we are not having a public vote on that resolution is because, obviously, the other side does not want to debate or discuss this; they put in a quorum call, which means we have a time out and we cannot go back into play on the field here to move forward with our business until the other side allows us to go back into play. This institution would have been shut down the rest of the night as long as the Senator from New Hampshire's amendment was on the floor because they do not want to talk about this. They certainly do not want to vote on this. I suspect if there is a public vote on this, which is the way we do things in the U.S. Senate, it would pass 100 to 0. I do not think there are too many who would stand up and defend the conduct of Mr. Livingstone. I do not think the issue is that there are too many people over there that want to defend Mr. Livingstone. The issue is that a lot of people do not want this to be the discussion on the U.S. Senate floor. I do not blame them. This is not a pretty subject, but it is a serious matter. It is a very serious matter, and it is not a political matter. Yes, there are political implications, I am not naive to that. But this is a very serious breach of security matter. The American public must have faith in their Government's ability to keep classified information just that, classified, and away from people for using it for dirty tricks or just for their own jollies, as may be the case here. I do not know, maybe it was two rogue guys who were just having fun or maybe it was a bureaucratic snafu, where someone just made a mistake. But if someone just made a mistake, and I am the general counsel, and I am looking through these documents that were released just a few days ago, and I see in here that we have 481 documents that we should not have had sitting at the White House for a year at that time, when I am reviewing the subpoena request from the House and I see this, and I claim Executive privilege over this information for a year, then somebody else had to know something. It is not just these two folks running around having fun in the basement of the White House. Someone very high up said, ``Yes, we know these documents are here. In fact, we will let them sit here for another year, and we are going to claim privilege over these documents.'' That someone, at least tacitly, is condoning what they are doing in the general counsel's office. The American public has a right to know that people in the White House or in the Congress are not playing fast and loose with the private lives of ordinary American citizens. At the very least, that is what is going on here. I heard the Senator from Oklahoma talk about when he has reviewed FBI files. I have reviewed FBI files as a member of the Armed Services Committee. They do bring the files and they sit there with you while you review them. You cannot take notes, you cannot make copies, you cannot do anything with those files. If you have a question, you ask the question of the individual and they track down the answer for you. They do treat these things as very confidential because there is information in there that is not substantiated. It is a lot of hearsay in many cases. ``A said this about B, who said this about this person.'' There is all sorts of stuff in there, and a lot of it is unsubstantiated, and probably some of it is false. It is a complete record. It is unedited. To have those laying around the White House or someplace for 2 years, 1 of those 2 years the information letting us know that those documents were there, was under subpoena, and they held it, that is serious. To suggest the Senator from New Hampshire should not be able to come up here and debate that subject and get a decision on the part of the U.S. Senate when the evidence is very clear of what is going on here-- we will have testimony tomorrow by these two gentleman who are going to tell their story, or maybe tell their story. We will see. I do not know whether they will tell their story. I hope they do. They will be there tomorrow. Maybe after we hear the testimony of Mr. Livingstone, maybe there will be a resolution that will be bipartisan that calls for his resignation or dismissal. Somehow, I think we need to send a message out of the floor here of the U.S. Senate that this is a serious matter that should be treated as such by a President, who I think right before the election said he would have the most ethical administration in the history of this country. Do you want to talk about a promise? That is a great promise. I will leave it to you to determine whether you think he has kept that promise, whether you believe this administration has been the most ethical administration in the history of this country, whether you believe it is ethical for members of the administration to gather FBI files on, conveniently, almost all Republicans and have them laying around the White House--private, confidential files, classified files-- for 2 years. As I said, that is only a third of the papers that have been asked for. There are still other documents out there that we are waiting to look at, which are being protected by the White House, which I suspect they consider more politically damaging. I think we have an obligation, not from a partisan perspective, but from the perspective of getting to the bottom line of what is going on here. Maybe all of those 2,000 pages will show the snafu, will exonerate the President, will exonerate everyone up and down the chain of authority there, that this was, in fact, what they are claiming--a little mistake. It would take a lot of paper--much more than 2,000 pages, in my opinion--to do that, but maybe it will. So be it. But we should have that information. What is hanging over this investigation right now is a cloud of potential criminal activity. The White House knows if there is potential criminal activity discussed in those documents, they cannot claim Executive privilege. It is clear that they cannot claim Executive privilege if there is illegal activity involved in those documents. So let us wait and see. Let us wait and see how this is going to play out. If there is any problem I have with the resolution of the Senator from New Hampshire, it is that it targets one person. I would suspect that what we are going to see here, as this issue develops, is that we are going to see everyone turn in their guns on Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Marceca. They are going to have horns and a little beard, and they are going to be the scapegoats, the bad guys. Everybody is going to point the finger at them and try to make them out to be the villains and the guys who did all the bad things here, and all of the rest of us are as pure as the wind-driven snow, and we did not know what the bad boys were doing all this time. That is what, I guarantee you, will be the line. Once we find out this was not a snafu, that this was, in fact, a pretty bad happening, we will then turn from the snafu to the scapegoat. And they will stonewall and stonewall as long as they can, putting those two guys out front to take the fall. Well, let us see what this body is going to do about it. Let us see how bipartisan we can be to get to the truth on something that has serious, serious liberties implications. Let us see how bipartisan we are going to be. Let us see how much we really want to find out the truth, or how much we want to protect for political purposes. I am willing and anxious to see the bipartisanship on this investigation. I am anxious to see resolutions brought to the floor that have bipartisan support, which say that we need to get to the bottom of this, and we need to speak as one voice in the Senate and speak up for privacy rights of individuals and against unethical behavior in the White House. When I start to see some of that happening, then maybe we will not have to have these little breaks in time here on the floor. Maybe we would not have to have a shutdown like the one that occurred this afternoon, the shutdown of this bill, which is a very important bill to this country, the defense authorization bill. Maybe we will not have to see a shutdown. Maybe we will see true cooperation for the betterment of this country, instead of a continual, well, let us try to put this behind us. There is an investigation going on, and let us not deal with this. Let us not talk about it. Let us not put it before the American public so that they know what the heck is going on. Let us not tell them what is really at stake here, and what classified files really mean. Mr. President, I think we do need to talk about that. I think the American public needs to know what is involved in these documents, what is involved in the law. I hope that Members who certainly know the acts better than I do, who are on the Judiciary Committee, will come here and actually talk about that, talk about what is involved. I know many Senators have done so. I think it needs to be explained more. This is a serious problem, and the Senator from New Hampshire, who, I would say, somewhat courageously stood up and took the risk of getting some missiles fired at him--which was done--did so. But I think he did so to let it be known that this is not an issue that we believe is exempt from discussion here on the Senate floor during this very important time. So I am anxious to see what happens tomorrow. And maybe depending on what happens tomorrow, we may be back here on the Senate floor with further discussion and possibly other kinds of resolutions that express the sense of the Senate, or even do more than that, with regard to this situation. It is one that I hope we can deal with in a bipartisan fashion, as I said before. If the Senator from New Hampshire actually had a chance to have a vote on his resolution, I think if the vote was public, it would be 100 to 0--even if it was private, it would be 100 to 0. That is how most Members feel about it. Most Members feel very uncomfortable about this. I am not asking them to defend this. There is a reasonable side to say that the jury is still out, and let us wait and see what happens, let us not draw conclusions from everything. I think, certainly, from the evidence revealed so far, we have some very serious problems here that need to be addressed, and I hope this body will be as active in pursuing that oversight responsibility that we have as the House of Representatives Government Oversight Committee. I want to commend my colleague from Pennsylvania, someone whom I have known for a long, long time, Bill Clinger, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee over in the House of Representatives. I had the honor, as a college student at Penn State, to work as an intern for Bill Clinger. He is someone who I think, frankly, is seen in the House as being beyond partisanship. Bill has been a stand-up guy, who is not engaged in partisan activities. I think maybe more than any other Member over there, he has the ability and legitimacy to take on this issue in a very fair-minded way. I think he has done that. Bill Clinger does not pursue things unless he believes there were some misdeeds. He pursued it, and he pursued it honestly and forthrightly. He did not make partisan statements during that time. He stuck to his guns, stuck to the facts, and he has done an outstanding job. I am only disappointed that he is not running for reelection. I hope he does so, and that he finishes his term in the same manner that he has conducted himself--keeping to the facts, keeping on this case, and following through to its conclusion. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.