Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. For the information of all Senators, votes can be expected to occur throughout Thursday's session of the Senate and the Senate may be asked to be in session into the evening in order to make progress on the pending bill.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 27, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to use later in the day, and there then be a period for the transaction of morning business, not to extend beyond the hour of 10:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Lott for 10 minutes, Senator Thomas for 15 minutes, Senator Pryor for 10 minutes, Senator Hatch for 5 minutes, Senator Harkin for 10 minutes, and Senator Dorgan for 10 minutes; further, at 10:30, the Senate immediately resume consideration of H.R. 956, the product liability bill.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read for a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today as a replacement, pinch- hitting for the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, who usually guides this half hour of time for the freshmen. We call this our freshman focus, 11 freshman Republicans who on Tuesday and Thursday mornings come to the Senate floor to talk about issues of importance to the Senate, to the country. Senator Thomas has done a fine job in doing that. He is at the National Press Club today, so he is not available to do that. But I will do my best to fill in for him and try to lead the discussion this morning with my colleague from Maine and others who will appear on the floor to talk about our theme for today, which was a question I received a lot in town meetings and other meetings when I was back in Pennsylvania, when I was home in the last few weeks: What is ahead for the Senate? What is the Senate going to be doing with not just the Contract With America, but a whole bunch of other things? So we thought we would take on that question head on: What is the agenda for the Senate? What are we going to be doing? Is it relevant, and how relevant is it, for the American public and what they are concerned about? I had lengthy discussions at home at these town meetings and I got a good feel that we are on the right track. What is in our sights here in the U.S. Senate is on track with where the American public would like us to go. The issue we are debating here on the floor today and for the next week or so is an issue of very great importance to the economic well- being of this country, legal reform. We have a much too costly legal system. It is one that makes us uncompetitive and inefficient, and one that is not fair to society as a whole. While we may have people, individuals, who hit the jackpot and win the lottery in some cases, that is not exactly what our legal system should be designed to do. It should have the societal benefit of spreading risk around, and also creating justice not just for the individual but for society as a whole. I do not think our system achieves that as well as it can, and I think legal reform we are facing here on the Senate floor will be a help to everyone in our society. That, I believe, is very relevant for the average American. The other thing we are obviously going to be bringing up, that may be somewhat expedited as a result of the tragedy in Oklahoma City, is a crime bill with very tough provisions on antiterrorism that is going to be, I believe, a bipartisan effort. Senator Hatch has talked about moving forward the crime bill, parts of which have passed the House, and moving it to the Senate floor with some tough antiterrorism measures, to quickly respond. Hopefully, the crime bill we are trying to push through will get an expedited path as a result of some of the activities over the last week or so. Hopefully, the Senate can quickly respond. Again, it is a matter of whether the other side is going to allow this body to move in an expeditious though thoughtful way or whether we are going to play delaying tactics and stalling tactics, to be a roadblock to progress. There are two other things I want to focus on. If I heard about an issue back home from folks who were trying to make a living, small businessmen in particular, it was regulatory reform. More than anything else, having the Government regulators be more reasonable in dealing with the laws that we put forward and for the Congress and for the regulators to work together to put forward regulatory schemes that make common sense, not these overly bureaucratic and harmful procedures we put in place today to overregulate our society. Again, they cause a lot of personal pain and suffering and problems and affect lives in ways that are almost incalculable as a result of the scheme we put in effect over the last 30 or 40 years. We need to look at this, recreate Government anew, do something commonsense oriented to make Government work better for people back home. I believe the regulatory reform measures we will be considering here in the next month or so will go a long way toward doing that. The last thing we are going to be looking at, and I will combine these two, is we are going to be looking at a tax cut bill and we are going to be looking at a budget resolution that is going to put this country on a road to a balanced budget in 7 years. I know the Senator from Maine is going to talk about this in detail as a member of the Budget Committee. In fact, we are going to have on the floor of the Senate a budget that will bring us to balance in 7 years. We will be able to vote for a balanced budget. I think it is the first time that has been the case, that the majority party in one of the bodies has proposed a balanced budget, since 1969. So it is in fact historic and it is a great opportunity. It is a great challenge for not only the Members of the Senate, but for this country, to take a step back and look and see what we are going to do, not just to get the numbers to add up right but simply how are we going to save this country? How are we going to provide for some stability and financial future of this country? This is not about just balancing the budget; this is about saving the country. Because if we do not take this course, if we do not act seriously on this fiscal crisis we are in right now, it is only going to get harder in the future. It does not get easier. Anyone who will tell you we can just put this off a little bit and it will get easier in the future is wrong. The budget deficit gets worse and worse the longer we wait. You jeopardize programs like Medicare and Social Security and every other popular program that is here in Washington by delaying and playing politics with this issue. I am hopeful we will not play politics, that we will be able to stand up here and have an intelligent debate on the floor of the Senate and talk about what we are going to do to set priorities and put this country on a sound fiscal footing in the future so we can make sure people who are banking on Social Security and Medicare in their retirements, people who need the welfare systems that we have and hopefully will be able to reform, that those systems will be available and are not just going to be squeezed out because of our inability to set fiscal priorities today. The chance of them being squeezed out in the future is not just a possibility, it is a certainty. We will squeeze these programs out, a lot of them, if we do not set our house in order now. So I am excited about that. I think it is a great opportunity for the Senate to shine, for us to really step forward and have this kind of deliberative discussion about issues at the core of who we are as a country and what direction we are going to take. I am anxious to get ahead, to look ahead at the next few months and see what we are going to do here in the U.S. Senate. I think it bodes well for this country for us to have this kind of aggressive agenda for the American public. I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maine. A Balanced Budget

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his fine remarks and for his zealous participation in trying to get the Senate moving and working. This is a tough place to get activated, but the Senator from Arizona has been a delightful thorn in the side of a lot of folks around here to try to get things going, and I commend him for his activity. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Thompson.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his fine remarks and very cogent points on a number of issues, particularly his comments on our downsizing too quickly, not just with the military but with our domestic intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies. I think the Senator has hit the nail right on the head there and I congratulate him for his statements on that matter. I would like to yield our remaining time that was allocated to us this morning to the Senator from Oklahoma, who I know will be in the Chamber shortly with a resolution concerning the tragedy in his home State of Oklahoma, to talk about the agenda for the future here in the Senate. Senator Inhofe.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be granted permission to conduct a hearing Thursday, April 6, 10:00 a.m. on legislation to approve the National Highway System; issues related to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge; and the innovative financing of transportation facilities.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet on Thursday, April 6, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a hearing on the consumer price index.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Thursday, April 6, 1995 session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting an executive session and markup on S. 565.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 6, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony on the implementation of acquisition management reform in the Department of Defense in Review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 1996 and the future years Defense program.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on The FDA and the Future of the American Biomedical and Food Industries, during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 6, 1995 at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 6, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. to held a hearing on ``the right to own property.''

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am incredibly disappointed at the outcome of this negotiation. I had hoped that the good-faith effort of the majority leader who stayed here late last night and worked on this bill late, and diligently, and I think more than bent over backward to accommodate leadership on the Democratic side to help them restore some of the money that they felt was so desperately needed for programs that they have long fostered and supported in this institution. We have been working with the majority leader, several members of the freshmen class, Senator Kyl from Arizona, Senator Ashcroft from Missouri, Senator McCain from Arizona, and myself have been working to try to craft an amendment that recognizes the concerns of the minority and at the same time preserve some of the objections that we had to the bill. Frankly, we thought we were pretty generous. The minority leader came in and asked in the original amendment, the amendment that was pending, for almost $1.3 billion in more spending, more spending on almost all social programs; just more social program spending. These were not, just so you understand, the bill that came to the floor of the House--the Hatfield substitute was not--had increases in these programs. Every one of these programs that the minority leader asked for already had an increase from last year. They already had an increase, and in many cases huge amounts of increases. But they cut back a little bit on the rate of the increase with the Hatfield substitute. The Democratic leader did not like that. So he jacked it back up. OK. We said, fine. You want to jack up some programs and put them back to the level that they were before, which was a dramatic increase over where we were last year, you think those are the most important, we understand the sensitivity you have, we are willing to work on that. As Senator Dole, and other freshmen, came forward with an amendment, we said we believe we should offset these expenditures not with money from a year or two down the road--which is what the minority leader, the Democratic leader--they pulled back money out that was funny money from years down the road. You want to spend money this year, let us take money out this year. That is the way we should do things around here, not spend more money this year and find funny money down the road to pay for it. We have been doing that a long time around here. Let us get serious. And so we got serious. We made a serious compromise. And we thought we had a serious compromise agreement that would have accomplished three major things. No. 1, it would have given the minority leader, Senator Daschle, and folks on his side almost all of what they wanted in this increase in social spending--almost. Instead of $1.3 billion, we give $800 million in more spending--$800 million in more spending on many programs that are not exactly well received on this side of the aisle, like the AmeriCorps Program. We gave them an increase in the AmeriCorps Program from what the Appropriations Committee had suggested. We allowed an increase of $100 million in a program that in our amendment we wanted to cut by $200 million. So from where we started, we gave them a $300 million increase. That was not good enough. We gave them all the money they wanted in WIC, school-to-work, child care, Head Start, $60 million of the $67 million they wanted for Goals 2000, title I, impact aid, safe and drug-free schools, Indian housing, housing modernization, community development banks--every social program, all the way down, they got almost all of what they wanted. We took some of their cuts. Some of the things they used in the original Daschle amendment to pay for this bill we accepted, we accepted as ways to pay for this. And we said, OK, in exchange for not getting all that you wanted, we will not take all that we wanted. We will get rid of a lot of the proposed reductions that we wanted. And we put on the table some pretty minor things, folks--reducing the foreign operations, foreign aid by $25 million--$25 million; libraries by $10 million--and by the way, the libraries money was the President's rescission; that is the President's suggestion to us to take this money out, said it was not needed-- Federal administrative travel, something that they agreed to, that they suggested we increase, we increased to a cut of $225 million. By the way, that is out of a $107 billion budget we are taking out $225 million for Federal travel, hardly something that the public is concerned about, that we are not traveling enough around here; water infrastructure; and, oh, the sticking point. We took out of their sacred little cow $21 million of $312 million. We took $21 million out of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In the end, we would have had savings of $1.6 billion. They had additional spending of $800 million which would get us a net deficit reduction out of this amendment of $800 million. So we both win. They get $800 million more spending, we get $800 million in deficit reduction, so everybody sort of stands even. I always thought that is what compromises were all about. And so I am hopeful that in the next 45 minutes, the other members of the Democratic caucus who seem to be holding up this compromise take a look at this and realize it is in the best interests of this body and this Congress and this country to move forward with this compromise piece of legislation and get this enacted. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a paper entitled ``Possible Compromise'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. SANTORUM. My second question would be, of the Daschle amendment add-backs that we have debated here for several days, is it not also the Senator's understanding that every single one of those add-backs would be eligible to be added back after cloture, with the exception of the Goals 2000 provision which is neither in the House nor the Senate bill?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, is it not true, I ask the Senator from Mississippi, that 41 of the 72 Democratic amendments would be germane after this cloture vote? So 41 of the amendments that have been filed-- 41 is hardly a paltry sum--would be germane after this cloture vote would have been acted upon?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, of the 72----

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield? I just wanted to follow up on a comment you made, which is the----

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I want to commend the Senator from Wyoming for his continued effort to bring the freshmen here to the floor on a regular basis to talk about where this Senate is going and how we are living up here in the Senate to what the country said on November 8, and what the House is obviously very successfully doing in living up to their promises to the folks that they made when they ran for office back last year. The first thing I want to do is congratulate the House, having voted, pretty strong showing last night, for a tax reform bill and a tax cut bill--both a tax cut bill and a tax reform bill. It is a progrowth bill, a bill that is going to create more jobs, it will help families, eliminate the marriage tax penalty that has existed--which is a tremendous break--an encouragement for people to marry, an encouragement to supporting families. It is a bill that says to seniors that we believe seniors have value and worth, that seniors can, in fact, work past the age of 65 and earn a modest amount of money--$20,000, $15,000--and not lose your Social Security benefits, if you are age 65 to 70. We think that that is important. It is an important sign to seniors that we understand that they have value to give to the communities and to give it their businesses, and that we do not want to discourage seniors out of the work force and penalize them at a rate of over 50 percent in taxation if they make over $9,600 a year as a senior. We think that that is a very positive thing that occurred in that tax bill last night. The adoption tax credit provision which encourages adoption, we believe, is also a very, very positive profamily kind of tax change. And the list goes on. I want to commend them for the great work that they did in paying for the program. It is not a tax cut that will increase the deficit. They offset it, more than offset it, with spending reductions in order to pay for the tax reductions. That is the kind of decision that we will have to be making, whether it is, in fact, better to have a person keep their money or is it better to have a person send their money here and for Washington to figure how best to spend it, and of course take the cut for bureaucracy and write rules and regulations that make no sense, then send it back. That is the difference. I think it is a pretty easy call for most Americans. I am not surprised that it passed over in the House, and I will not be surprised when it passes over here in the Senate. On a larger scale, I want to congratulate the House for the great work that they have done. In 91 or 92 days they passed nine major pieces of legislation, nine major bills. The amount of work that they did in working--and I know a lot of folks around do not believe that Members of Congress and the Senate work very hard. I will say if we look at what the House of Representatives has done in this first 90 days, and the amount of hours they put in legislation in committees and in working groups and putting this stuff together to pass this kind of massive change that they promised, I think a person might think their keep. Let me suggest that the most important thing--I ask this question all the time--the most important thing that came out of the House of Representatives was not the tax bill, was not the balanced budget amendment, was not the line-item veto. The most important thing was they kept their promise. They kept their promise. They ran and they said, ``If you elect us, we will do 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10--we will do these 10 things. We promise you we will bring them up and we will get a vote and we will work our darndest to try to make that happen.'' They could not promise passage because you never know. But they promised they would try their best. Do you know what? They introduced bills exactly the way it was written in the contract. They did not change it. They did not say, look, I am going to cut taxes for middle-income people and then pass a tax increase. They did not say they were going to be for a balanced budget amendment and then pass big spending increases. No, they did exactly--exactly what they promised the American public. And they succeeded on 90 percent of it. They are batting .900. Ted Williams would be proud--.900; 90 percent of what they said they would try to do, they did. The only one they failed on was the constitutional amendment, which as most people know takes two-thirds of the body to pass, which is well beyond the number of Republicans that there are in the House of Representatives. So: The first ever vote on term limits. They failed, but 85 percent of the Republicans supported it. They got a majority of the House to support it. It is building. It is on the track to eventually pass, probably after the next election. So I think the country should look at the House of Representatives. One of the big concerns I had when I came to the U.S. House, 4 years now, now here in the Senate, is I think the public has lost trust in our institutions. They do not believe that we mean what we say or say what we mean; we are here and all we care about is getting reelected and having some power and being able to throw our weight around. What the public really wants does not really matter. It is just this big game down here. Is it not nice to know that promises can be kept; that people do sometimes mean what they say? They made some hard decisions. A lot of this stuff was not easy to do. A lot of it came, as you probably heard in the last few weeks, with a lot of criticism raining down on how mean-spirited this Contract With America is. I know it is mean to cut off a lot of bureaucrats here in Washington--that is mean--and to give that money back to you. That is very mean to the people who are here to protect the bureaucrats. I know it is mean to say people who are on welfare have to work at some point. That is terrible. It is terrible that we should require people to work. It is just unbelievable to me that argument was made on programs that were trying to help people. We are trying to give more responsibility and freedom and choices back to people, but that is the way things are in this town. If we do not keep the power then it is mean, because of course we are the only ones who actually care about people. You do not care about your neighbor, we do. You do not care about your family, we do. We care about it more than you do. I am sitting right behind the desk of the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm. I will never forget a statement he made on one of these talk shows. Ira Magaziner was on and they were talking about the health care plan of Clinton's a couple of years ago and Magaziner was making the point he does care about children, he does care about the young people in this country and the folks who are uninsured. He says, ``I care for your children as much as you do.'' That is what he said to Phil Gramm, and what Phil Gramm said, I think, was classic. And that is: ``OK, what are their names? What are their names?" You see, we all care. But do we really care about that one person? Do we really understand what their needs are? Not what ``the needs'' are, but ``their needs?'' What ``their concern'' is? See, that is the problem. We cannot deal with ``a concern.'' We deal with ``the concerns.'' The problem is ``the concerns'' sometimes do not beat ``a concern.'' And the closer we get to ``a concern'' and the closer we can tailor and allow the people who have the feeling and the relationship to deal with that concern, the better our country and the ``gooder'' our country is. This line has been used a lot around here and it is so true, the de Tocqueville line. ``America is great,'' he wrote in Democracy In America, ``America is great because America is good.'' The people are good, they care about each other. They reach out to their fellow man. There are volunteer organizations that developed here in the 1800's and 1900's that just did not exist anywhere else in the world because Americans cared about each other and felt that relationship and kinship. And he said America is a great country because it is a good country. ``And when America ceases being good it will cease being great.'' We are ceasing to be good because we have delegated everything to this massive bureaucracy here in Washington to be good for us. You hear the people, as you will over the next few months, get up and talk about: How can you be so mean as to not give money to--this or that. Folks, it is not my money. See, I am taking that money from somebody else who worked darned hard to make it. And who says I know best how to spend their money to help somebody else? That is the basic premise of what is going on here. If you want to talk about the revolution that is going on, that is the basic premise. I care as much--I believe more--but I do not necessarily think I am the best person equipped to make those decisions for everybody. We can best make those decisions one-on-one, local communities and groups, as opposed to here in Washington, DC. That is the fundamental argument. So, when you look at the first 100 days and you see what has happened in the U.S. House of Representatives, and I believe what will happen in the U.S. Senate, if you look at what we have accomplished and the hope that we have given to Americans that we in fact can change, that America, again, can be good, that America can be great, I think it is an inspirational story. We have done something in the House--and I believe the Senate will follow--we have done something that is more important than any one particular thing, and that is, I hope, we have restored the faith that the American public used to have in their institutions. Because if they do not believe in us, if what we say is irrelevant, if they do not believe in anything we say on the campaign trail, that we are just a bunch of folks who say what we need to say to get elected--if they do not have any faith in what we stand for, if they think all we are going to do is change our minds when we get down here, then democracy itself is in danger. If people do not believe in us anymore, if we do not stand for anything anymore, if all we are is symbols of a corrupt institution that does not respond to what the will of the public is, then democracy fails. It falls from within. Whether you agree with what the House of Representatives has done, whether you agree 10 percent, or 90 percent, or 100 percent, you have to stand back and say ``Well done. You did what you said you were going to do. We may not like it but, darn it, you did. And you have to tip your hat to that.'' Hopefully here in the Senate, while we did not sign the Contract With America, and no one in this institution did, and that is often repeated, we have an obligation to do something. We have an obligation to follow through and let the country know that elections do matter; that when the country speaks, we here in Washington, in both the House and Senate, listen. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may proceed as in morning business.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Senator Specter and I rise today to honor a native son of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who is going to be honored next month in Indiana, PA--the birthplace of Jimmy Stewart-- with a museum that is going to open right about half a block away from the birthplace of Jimmy Stewart. Many of us have been working long and hard on this museum, trying to get a suitable museum for a man like Jimmy Stewart. Jimmy Stewart asked, when the people of Indiana, PA, went to him and asked to do a museum for him, that it not be anything fancy; that he wanted it to be very modest. He did not want the University of Indiana, PA, to have a big museum dedicated to him. He wanted something very simple. In fact, he refused to have anyone from Hollywood participate in any of the fundraising. He said he wanted it to be something from the community and not anything that was generated with a lot of money and a lot of fanfare; that that would make him feel uncomfortable. So the people of Indiana, PA, have set about the process of raising the money locally and secured the third floor of an old house, just a very small amount of space. Mr. Stewart donated the artifacts for the museum, some of his personal memorabilia. And, in fact, he still has several old friends who have been sort of shepherding this cause along. I am rising today with Senator Specter to pay tribute to him and to the people of Indiana, PA, a little town in western Pennsylvania; a town that, frankly, has had some tough times of late. In fact, Indiana County has the highest unemployment rate of any county in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But they pulled themselves together and are putting together this really fine and lovely and modest tribute to Jimmy Stewart. The man is an incredible man in America. He is an actor who has appeared in 71 films. Obviously, we all know the famous films that he has been in. Who has gone through a Christmas holiday without seeing the brilliant George Bailey part that he played and that we all can identify with as someone who has gone through some tough times and been able to face those tough times, and the spiritual role that he played in that movie. I can still relate to him as I watch ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' and the role he played as a U.S. Senator in fighting for what the people of his State called for. He has been an inspiration not only on the movie screen, but he has been a tremendous inspiration as a war hero. He was assigned to the Army Air Corps, rising from private to bomber pilot, to commander of the Eighth Air Force Bomber Squadron. He, himself, flew 21 missions over enemy territory, including Berlin, Bremen and Frankfurt. By the time it was over Over There, James M. Stewart would be known as colonel, and he would be later decorated with an Air Medal, The Distinguished Flying Cross, and the Croix de Guerre. All told he accumulated 27 years of service in Active and Reserve Duty, even attaining the rank of brigadier general. On May 20 in Indiana, PA, we will be celebrating Jimmy Stewart's birthday and the opening of the Jimmy Stewart Museum. And, in so doing, we really do honor a great American, someone who takes life in stride and who is just a wonderful example of the goodness that is in America. I just want to read a couple of quotes from Jimmy Stewart that I found to be amusing and somewhat typical of the man. He said once: Jean Harlow had to kiss me, and it was then I knew that I'd never been kissed before. By the time we were ready to shoot the scene, my psychology was all wrinkled. On his experience in the military and in the war: I always prayed, but I didn't really pray for my life or for the lives of other men. I prayed that I wouldn't make a mistake. And finally, when he was flying a plane back for the Army, he ran into engine trouble while flying a tour of duty in 1959, but managed to bring his plane to a safe landing. He was quoted after he got out of the plane: All I could think of was not my personal safety, but what Senator Margaret Chase Smith (who was then chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee) would say if I crashed such an expensive plane. humbleness that Jimmy Stewart brought to the stage and to the screen and to the families of millions and millions of Americans and millions around the world. He, frankly, deserves a greater tribute but, frankly, I cannot think of a more appropriate tribute to a modest man, to a good man, than a modest museum in his own hometown. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.