Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, as previously agreed, Senator Dodd was to be recognized for 10 minutes to offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Would the Senator from Connecticut call for the yeas and nays?

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, in that I only have 3 minutes remaining, I am going to put aside my written remarks and, frankly, speak from the heart. I rise today, first, to thank Senator Santorum for his leadership on this issue but, more important, to stand with those who stand for the principle of life today on this very important bill. I have consistently supported this principle and have tried to listen with some care and compassion to those who advocate the other view. I heard them say things like, ``Let's make abortion safe, legal, and rare,'' except for the fact that when it comes to doing anything to make it rare, I seldom see them helping us in this endeavor. Conversely, I have tried very hard to reach out on issues of education and prevention to try to make abortion rare. Today presents us with an opportunity not to end abortion but simply to ban one incredibly gruesome procedure and to make all unborn American children safe from this procedure. It is clear, because of testimony that has come out, that the partial-birth abortion is anything but rare in this country, and today we need to make it impossible. I refer to the statement by the Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, a man much admired for his service in health care in this country, who said: Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both. As I ponder partial-birth abortion, I come to the conclusion that Americans must be bigger than this procedure performed on the most innocent among us. We are bigger than this, and I believe that Americans today in the United States will rise above this procedure to make it unlawful and to contribute towards the common desire of those who are pro-life and pro-choice to make abortion rare. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise in appreciation for the leadership of the chairman, the Senator from North Carolina, on this issue and as member of his committee I rise in support of the ratification of the CFE Flank Agreement. The CFE Treaty has been remarkably successful in reducing the cold war arsenals of conventional weapons in Europe. To date well over 50,000 tanks, artillery pieces and aircraft have been destroyed or removed from Europe. This treaty serves as an important mechanism to continue balanced force reductions in Europe, to build confidence among European States, and to provide assurances that NATO expansion will in no way threaten Russia. In addition to the Europe-wide national ceilings on specific categories of military equipment, the CFE Treaty established a system of four zones inside the map of Europe with separate subceilings. The three central zones are nested and overlapping, the fourth zone is the flank zone. The flank zones include Russia's northern and southern military districts that, during the cold war, were areas of heightened tension with NATO. NATO has corresponding limits on its Northern and Southern Flanks. The CFE flank zones limit the amount of equipment a country is permitted to deploy in certain areas of its own territory. The outbreak of armed ethnic conflicts in and around the Caucasus in 1993 and 1994, most notably the large scale offensive launched by the Russian Government in Chechnya, led to Russian claims for the need to deploy equipment in excess of treaty limits in that zone. Under the CFE Treaty, mechanisms exist that would allow parties the flexibility to make temporary adjustments in the size or location of their military equipment holdings with proper notification. However, in 1994 the Government of Russia signaled its intention to violate the treaty if such restrictions were not permanently relaxed. In early 1995, Clinton administration officials adamantly insisted that Russia must meet its obligations under the CFE Treaty on schedule. By May of that same year, those rigid statements demanding compliance soon collapsed into a frenzied effort to renegotiate the treaty on terms that would be acceptable to Russia. Aside from the embarrassing spectacle of Western concessions in the face of Russian arms control violations, the NATO alliance was further undermined by a United States-Russian side deal that failed to gain the support of our allies. A key element of the final compromise on this treaty is a confidential side statement which U.S. negotiators provided to the Russian delegation in order to win their approval of the Flank Document. An interim United States-Russian proposal--known as the Perry-Grachev understanding--led to yet another embarrassing retreat, this time from our own NATO allies. Finally, after 11th hour negotiations, the agreement before us today was accepted by all 30 parties to the CFE Treaty. In order to understand the process through which this treaty was approved, I strongly recommend that any interested Senator review that short document, which is available in the Office of Senate Security on the fourth floor of the Capitol. After reading that document, the purpose of the numerous restrictions contained in the resolution of ratification--particularly paragraphs 3 and 6--should be abundantly clear. The committee resolution reverses the affects of this side agreement by prohibiting United States participation in any negotiations which would allow Russia to violate the sovereignty of its neighbors. As further assurance, the resolution requires the President to certify, prior to deposit of the instrument of ratification, that he will vigorously reject any other side agreements sought by the Russians or any other country. I believe that the proper approach for the United States would have been to insist on Russian compliance 18 months ago. However, the 30 parties to the treaty were willing to reach a compromise consisting of the document before the Senate today. In all likelihood, if this treaty is rejected, it will be renegotiated on less favorable terms. With that in mind, and because of the 14 conditions included in the committee's resolution of ratification, I am willing to recommend support for this treaty. The treaty is an acceptable first step in resolving the difficult challenge of adapting a cold war era treaty to post-cold-war realities. It is one part in a series of efforts underway to redesign the security architecture of Europe, and as such it is an important step toward the larger goal of NATO enlargement. The CFE Treaty and the Vienna-based organization that oversees its implementation are important pieces of the geopolitical landscape of Europe and the former Soviet Union. With the end of the cold war, decisions made in the context of the CFE Treaty affect U.S. security on the margins. But for countries such as the Baltic States, Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, such decisions can affect the very sovereignty of these newly independent countries. Russia--still the largest military power in Europe--has used its armed forces in recent years in both Georgia and Azerbaijan. Russia uses its military presence in Ukraine and Moldova to influence the sovereign governments of those states. Russian Government officials have made open threats of military invasion against the Baltics. Finally, less than a year ago, a bloody war in Chechnya was brought to an end. That war was characterized by wide scale Russian atrocities, the intentional targeting of civilians, and casualties possibly in excess of 100,000 people--mostly innocent men, women, and children. It is against this back drop that the countries on Russia's periphery watch any revisions to the security guarantees contained in the CFE Treaty. Mr. President, I understand my time is up. On this basis, this treaty has been negotiated. Again, with the leadership of the chairman, I urge support from the Senate and thank you for this time.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to recognize 34 years of public service by Mayor Bill Smigley of Veneta, OR. I personally would like to thank Mayor Smigley for his commitment and hard work and wish him all the best in his retirement. Mayor Smigley served as city councilman for 18 years and mayor for 16 years, but has also shown a life-long dedication to improving not only his community but the State of Oregon. His service as chairman of Lane Council of Governments and his 16-year contribution to the League of Oregon Cities is a testament of his commitment to making Oregon's future brighter for all of us. I speak on behalf of many Oregonians across the State who look to Mayor Smigley's public service as a source of inspiration and hope that even in his retirement he will continue to work on future endeavors that will benefit our great State.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I ask to be recognized for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I appreciate this opportunity to speak briefly on this issue before the Senate. I begin by thanking my colleagues, Senator Ashcroft and Senator Dorgan, and their staffs for their leadership on this issue. As yet, only one State, the State of Oregon, my State, has passed legislation to allow assisted suicide. In 1994, Oregon voters approved ballot measure 16, called the Death With Dignity Act, which exempts from criminal and civil liability physicians who assist their patients in committing suicide. Since its approval, a ruling in March by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has prevented the law from taking effect, leaving the ultimate decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. However, I believe it is our responsibility to address this issue before other States, including New York and Washington, have to face the dilemma that now confronts Oregon. Oregon has taken the initiative in meeting the health care needs of our most needy and vulnerable citizens. Through the implementation of the Oregon health plan, I was a legislator who helped to enact and to pass and to fund that act. However, ballot measure 16 threatens the lives of those we have worked so hard to help. The Oregon health plan rations medicine in an honest way. What it does is rank the procedures that promote and provide preventive medicine. I am concerned, as an Oregonian, as an American, as a taxpayer, that this system that has been enacted with the very best of motives will provide a slippery slope that will make the right to die into a duty to die. In a time when we have few health care dollars and so many of those dollars are expended late in life, I fear the financial incentive that is built into the system if soon the right to die becomes, under financial extremis, a duty to die. Now, lest you think that I am exaggerating in my fears, the Oregon Medicaid director has recently publicly stated that once the legal issues have been resolved, Oregon will begin subsidizing physician- assisted suicide through the Oregon health plan. As one of Oregon's Senators, I cannot, on ethical, moral and other grounds, allow this to happen when I have the opportunity to prevent it. H.R. 1300 and Senate 304 is legislation that is not an attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court. Rather, this legislation is to determine whether we should require the American taxpayer to pay for these services through Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, health care services provided to Federal prisoners under the military health care system. The potential legal practice of physician-assisted suicide sets a standard for our entire Nation. We should, instead of subsidizing a path to death, try to strengthen the quality of hospice and end of life care. Let's offer support, not suicide, as the acceptable and responsible, viable option. Mr. President, my colleagues, it is with great concern and with a heavy heart that I ask your support in passing this important and timely legislation. Oregon is a beautiful State in which to live, to visit, to raise a family. I ask today that you do not help Oregon become a State where people now come to die. As I have said to the people and press of Oregon, the only thing that we should be killing around here is Federal funding for assisted suicide. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I urge their support for this legislation. I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to join 19 of my colleagues as a cosponsor of the tax limitation amendment, a proposed amendment to the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to raise taxes. I stand here as an elected representative of the State of Oregon. A State that last year added a three-fifths vote of its legislatures as an amendment to its State constitution in order to raise taxes. This requirement stipulates that when Government seeks to raise taxes, to increase what it takes out of its citizens pocketbooks, there ought to be more than a narrow agreement--and, indeed there ought to be a broad consensus. Oregonians believe that before there is to be an increase in taxes, there has to be a firm belief by a supermajority of its elected representatives that this is necessary. That is why we amended the State constitution to require just such a supermajority in 1996. Further, a two-thirds vote requirement fits with the spirit of the Federal Constitution. Supermajority voting requirements are found throughout the Constitution. Some people say to me, ``Well, you don't need a supermajority voting requirement. We rule by majority in this country.'' But the truth is our Founding Fathers knew there were times when it had to be otherwise. That is why in articles I, II, V, VII, VIII, IX, and XXV there are supermajority voting requirements. These are applied to things like motions to consent to a treaty, to override a Presidential veto, or to vote in the case of a Presidential disability. Further, the 16th amendment, which provided for the Federal income tax, had to be approved by a vote of two-thirds of Congress and three- fourths of the States. It is logical that an amendment to extend this tax burden would require a supermajority vote. Our Founding Fathers saw reason to check the simple majorities used in deciding issues in a democracy. In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay all cautioned that simple majorities can lead to mob rule. Indeed, our Founding Fathers were particularly sensitive to protecting our citizens from unjust taxation. Indeed, our break from Great Britain stems from a fight over unjust taxation. Ours is a nation born out of a tax rebellion. And the spirit of that rebellion still beats in the heart of Americans. Now some may say we don't need this amendment because the people can simply vote against lawmakers who keep increasing taxes. In the Federalist Papers--Federalist 51--however, James Madison said: ``A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.'' And that's what this proposed amendment is: an auxiliary precaution against overtaxation. I believe it is imperative, now that the balanced budget amendment has been defeated, that any action to increase taxes require a supermajority of both Houses. In my opinion, without this two-thirds rule, politicians too easily fall back on tax increases in order to balance the budget. Really, there are just three options for balancing the budget: You can cut discretionary spending, cut entitlement spending, or you can raise taxes. As for No. 1--there simply isn't enough discretionary funding to cut, in order to balance the budget. As for No. 2--entitlement costs are spiraling out of control and each year the Clinton administration shows that it is unwilling even to educate the American people as to the hard choices that lie ahead. This leaves No. 3--raising taxes--as the last option. And that option is the one I would like to see made more difficult to undertake. Yet at the moment it only takes a simple majority--50 plus 1 in the Senate--to raise taxes. Indeed, the 1993 Clinton tax bill, the single largest tax increase in the Nation's history, passed by this slim margin of 50 Senators, plus the Vice President acting as President of the Senate. As I have said, many States have already passed similar legislation to make it harder to take more in taxes out of the citizen's pocketbook. This legislation works on the State level. It is needed at the Federal level. And this fact is unmistakable. In most of those States where a supermajority is required to raise taxes, taxes as a proportion of personal income have declined. In those States without the supermajority, taxes as a proportion of personal income have risen. I think most Americans believe they are already paying too much in Federal income taxes. What some call tax day--April 15--is next week. Let me take a moment and put things in perspective for you--how taxes have risen over the last few decades. What we call tax freedom day--the day that the money you earn starts going into your own pocket and not the Government's, has changed. In 1950 it was April 3. This year it will be sometime in mid-May. In fact, today the average family pays more in taxes each year than it does in food, shelter, clothing and medical care combined. Add up the taxes--local, State, and Federal--for most it takes half of what people make. Can't we in Government discharge our legitimate public obligations on such a percentage? I think we can, I think we should, and we must. I want to see our Government balance its budget. But I also want to see this trend of increasing taxation come to an end. I believe that this tax limitation amendment is the surest way to do that. And I urge my colleagues to support the tax limitation amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I request 10 minutes as part of morning business.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, ever since the pioneer days, when entire communities would gather to help in the building of a barn, Oregon has had a rich tradition of neighbor helping neighbor. This heritage of neighbor helping neighbor is alive and well in countless Oregon cities and towns. I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding example of the difference that can be made through volunteerism. The Capitol Lions Club, along with other Lions Clubs in the Salem-Keizer area, are helping our young people learn about patriotism through a project where small flags are presented to first-grade students. Capitol Club members buy lumber, cut it into small blocks, drill holes in the blocks, put Lions' decals on them, and place small 4- by 6-inch flags in them. Lions members then go in to classrooms, to present the flag to students, along with a presentation on the importance of a flag, and a brochure on flag history and etiquette. This year, 2,575 first-graders and their teachers in Oregon public and private schools will benefit from this outstanding program. As one Salem first grade teacher said, ``The children are very excited to have their own little flags to take home. They have their special little places for them, I know that it is still real important to them.'' Mr. President, I'm proud to be one of those Americans who feel something stir in my heart everytime I see our flag flying in the wind. What better way to ensure a bright future for our country than by ensuring that the timeless value of patriotism is alive and well in our young people. Mr. President, I am proud to salute the Capitol Lions Club of Salem, OR, for a job well done. I ask that an article from the Salem Statesman-Journal detailing this project be printed in the Record, in the hopes that other organizations around the country might undertake a similar project. The article follows: Lions Club Offers Lesson On Flags (By Hank Arends) The members of area Lions clubs have a community project that they believe is worth saluting. For more years than anyone can remember, club members annually have presented a program on the U.S. flag to first- graders. They give the students their own flag on a wooden base with the Lion's insignia and a brochure on flag history and etiquette. This year, 2,575 first-graders and their teachers in area public and private schools received the 4-by-6-inch flags, said Ralph Jackson, community coordinator. And the kids loved them. ``They were very excited to have their own little flags to take home,'' said Katie Keisey, a first-grade teacher at Lake Labish Elementary School. ``They have their special little places at home for them. I know that it is still real important to them.'' Those who do the distribution love it, too. ``It makes me feel so good that those little kids were so receptive,'' said Viola Laudon of the Keizer club. ``They give us such comments as, `Oh, I love you. Thank you for the flag. I'm taking good care of my flag.' '' Laudon said of a large card she received from students at the Keizer Christian School. ``This is an idea that started in Arizona, and somehow we heard about it and thought it might be OK,'' Jackson said. The club members try to make their school visits in February, around the birthdays of presidents Washington and Lincoln. The local clubs and a lot of others get their flag sets from the Capitol Lions Club. Joe Carson is chairman of the production and marketing of 26,000 to 27,000 flags a year in Oregon and as far away as Pennsylvania. ``It is kind of an Americanization project. We came up with the idea 15 to 17 years ago as a fund-raising project,'' Carson said. The Capitol members sell the sets at 65 cents each to other clubs and make $6,000 to $7,000 annually for such Lion's projects as assistance to the hearing impaired and blind, Carson said. Capitol Club members buy the lumber, cut it into small blocks, drill the holes, put Lion's decals on them and finish them. They also reproduce the brochure that goes with each set. The participating clubs are Capitol, Keizer, Salem Downtown, Northeast, South Salem and West Salem. Frank VonBorstel was area chairman of the flag distribution for at least 10 years. ``We want to interest the young people and provide the chance for them to learn something about patriotism and the flag,'' Von-Borstel said. Lion Kelly Freels tells of Lions members who served in the Korean War and try to tell the first-graders what the flag means to them. ``They tell them how when they came back to base and saw the U.S. flag flying, they knew they were safe. It also gives us an opportunity to get out in the schools and see what is going on,'' Freels said.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, my home State of Oregon lost one of its most distinguished citizens last Thursday, with the passing of George Pasero. For the past half century, generation after generation of Oregonians have opened up their newspaper and turned to the sports page to read what George Pasero had to say. As a reporter, columnist, and sports editor for the Oregon Journal from 1946 to 1982, and then as a part- time columnist for the Oregonian, George earned a reputation not only as a respected and keen observer of the world of sports, but as a professional, fair, and compassionate person. In these days where it seems that the sports world is full of million dollar salaries and million dollar egos, George Pasero liked to focus on the true joys of sports. Let me share with you some very eloquent words from one of the final columns George wrote before his death: ``Dismiss for one evening the egomania, greed, and disrespect for authority that have so marred the high levels of professionals,'' George wrote about a banquet honoring Oregon athletes. ``Think here of your neighbor kid happily going out to soccer practice, all the basketball shooting you see on driveways, all the evenings of Little League and hamburger dinners, the prep football players with mud-caked uniforms on a rainy, cold Friday night.'' Mr. President, I am just one of countless Oregonians who will miss George's insights and wisdom. Sharon joins with me in sending our condolences to his wife, Jeanne, his daughter, Anne, his sons, John, Mark, and Jim, and his five grandchildren.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Thank you, Mr. President. I would also like to thank Senator Leahy. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue that is both very controversial and personal; therefore, I do not have a prepared speech, but wish to speak from the heart. Much has been said here today about Senator Mark Hatfield's leadership on the issue of international family planning. In fact, I occupy the seat that Mark Hatfield sat in for more than 30 years. Like Mark Hatfield, I am pro-life. As a State Senator, I advanced pro-life legislation in the Oregon State senate, and have never been afraid to stand up for the principles of the sanctity of life. As a candidate in two races for the U.S. Senate in one calendar year, no other issue was brought up more frequently than the issue of abortion. As I have stated throughout my career as a legislator, I intend to continue my support of pro-life issues and to work constructively with Members on both sides of the aisle on legislation to reduce the incidence of abortion on a national and international level. For these reasons, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join in my support of Senate Joint Resolution 14. While the debate on this resolution has centered on the issues relating to abortion, the underlying question is whether the $385 million that has already been appropriated for international family planning will be released on March 1, 1997 or whether it will be released on July 1, 1997. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, the money will be released. According to research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, the World Health Organization, and other independent researchers, the release of these funds on March 1, 1997, will significantly reduce the incidence of abortion in developing countries that receive assistance through USAID. Therefore, as a pro-life Member of this body, I encourage my colleagues to vote yea. I understand and share the concerns of those who have suggested that this money is being spent for abortion services. This concerns me greatly, particularly as the law of the United States prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortion services. To address these concerns, I reviewed the USAID audits and am assured that this funding is in fact being used for family planning services, not abortion. For this reason, I also encourage a yea vote. In addition to sharing my support for this resolution, I would also like to take a moment to express my frustration on this issue. While I certainly respect those who may not support my pro-life position, I am so often disappointed that there is little effort to educate about the options to abortion and ways to make abortion less frequent. The focus is often on the legal and the safe but never the rare. Similar frustration stems from those who advocate for life. It is unfortunate that the effort to advocate and encourage family planning does not equal the effort to discourage abortion. Today, we have the opportunity to address this inequity and to encourage and protect family planning both nationally and internationally. This is a vote to support life, and tomorrow I will vote as my predecessor Mark Hatfield, in favor of this resolution. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GORDON SMITH

Mr. GORDON SMITH. Mr. President, it is an honor to rise in this Chamber to make my first remarks as a U.S. Senator. I'd like to begin by paying tribute to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah for the leadership he has shown on this issue for many sessions of Congress, to help focus us, the American people, upon this important and overriding issue of balancing our Federal budget. I come to this Chamber, to this service at the Federal level, from the State legislature in Oregon--where I served as a State senator and as the Senate president. It was our highest priority in the State legislature to balance our budget. Indeed, it was our constitutional responsibility to balance the budget. Every session, we would convene in Salem; coming together as Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, to have an honest debate about how we spent public money, and what taxes, if any, should be raised or reduced, and how best to be good public stewards. I say it was an honest debate because we did not have the recourse of deficit spending--of going to the credit card of our children. I took pride in the kinds of debates we had. Sometimes they were tough, but always they ended with our budget balanced and Oregon's fiscal house being in order. Today we come to a decision about whether or not our Government needs to have the same kind of commitment, that constitutional commitment that we have in most States. My colleague, Senator Allard, read repeatedly from the words of Thomas Jefferson. I like Jefferson's words in which he counseled us that it should be unthinkable for us to spend the money of the next generation for our consumption in this generation. Indeed, we have done this to a degree, now, that we begin to hamstring our economy and threaten the future in ways that ought to make us ashamed. During the course of a yearlong campaign, I would go home as often as I could. But always when I did, I was very tired from long hours of campaigning. On one occasion, I sat in my living room and began to fall asleep. My son, who was 6 years old at the time, toddled over to me and tapped me on the wrist. As I was waking up, he asked me the question, ``Daddy, can I have your watch when you're dead?'' At that time, and since then, I have laughed at that comment many times because it was a question from an innocent child. I have thought humorously about it since and yet, also, soberly. I would like my sons and daughters, and your sons and daughters, to be able to inherit more than just a watch, to be able to inherit the kind of future and the kind of America that we have had, and the kind which we have an obligation to pass on. What drives our need for a balanced budget amendment? Pure and simple, it is the growth in spending that is out of control. It is immoral. It ought to be illegal. I would like to use the growth of four programs to demonstrate how, frankly, when coupled with interest on the national debt, we are spending ourselves into oblivion. The four programs are entitlements. They are important programs, and they have done great things for the American people--for the needy and the elderly--to take them out of poverty. Entitlements don't require a vote of Congress each year. And interest on the debt is something we have to pay, again; it is not voted upon. Thirty years ago, in 1967, the Federal Government's spending on these four programs--Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Federal and military pensions, and then interest on the national debt--represented just 25 percent of our budget. Ten years later, in 1977, just these four programs, plus interest, had grown to 41 percent of the budget. In 1987, just these four programs, plus interest, had grown to 50 percent of the budget. In 1997, these four programs, plus interest, have grown to 61 percent of our budget. In 2007, just 10 years from now, they will make up more than two-thirds of our Federal expenditures, if we don't change our spending habits now. What will be left, then, for schools, roads and bridges, for police and for our national defense? If we don't do something right now, then each year the deficit will grow higher and higher. We must have a mechanism that will ensure that deficit spending will stop. We must have an amendment that will ensure a balanced budget. I understand, as a former legislator at the State level, how difficult it is to say ``no,'' because whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you go through the fire and pain of a campaign because you care about people, you want to leave your community better off. Everyone who comes to your door has a legitimate and often heartrending story to tell. And if you could, you would say ``yes'' every time. But the problem in this Federal city is that we never say ``no'' when we ought to say ``no'' for the betterment of our whole society. I spoke about these programs, these entitlements that help our Nation's elderly. I believe that to preserve and protect and strengthen Medicare and Social Security, we have to have a debate about the whole problem. Many have talked about how Social Security needs to be protected. I share that concern, and I will always talk about that, and I will vote to protect Social Security. But it is not right to say that this program--in order to protect it--should be taken off budget as part of the balanced budget amendment. Not even our current President believes that and, therefore, when speaking about his administration's deficits, always including the Social Security trust funds. There are those in the Senate that say that we should exempt Social Security from the balanced budget amendment. I disagree with that. I say that passing the balanced budget amendment, which both Republicans and Democrats have proposed, is the most important thing we can do to protect Social Security and our seniors. If Social Security balances are exempted, additional cuts will have to be made during years of surpluses. For example, in the year 2002, Congress will already have to save, in order to balance the budget, $188 billion. If those trust funds are exempted, then Congress will have to cut an additional $104 billion from the budget. Thus, Congress will have to radically cut programs by $292 billion. Just making the cuts to reach the $188 billion mark will be difficult. An extra $104 billion will be incredibly difficult and will, undoubtedly, cut discretionary and mandatory programs, many of which will help America's aged, those 65 and over. What does a balanced budget mean to Oregon, my State, and to your State, and to America? It guarantees that we will be fiscally responsible. It means that we will restrain the rate of growth of deficit spending by the Federal Government, and that we will increase the rate of growth in the private sector. It means that interest rates will be lower for all Americans. That means lower mortgage payments. For example, if you have a $100,000 mortgage payment, on a 30-year basis, a 2 percent drop in the interest rate would result in a $140 per-month reduction in your mortgage payments. At the same time, it means lower car payments. For a $15,000, 5-year auto loan at 9 percent, this would represent savings of $1,200 over the life of the loan. Well, lower interest rates also means lower interest on your credit cards. On a credit card balance of $1,000, with a rate of 14 percent, it would save you $20. That is real money to real people who have real problems in their lives. It means more money in your pocket, as an American citizen, to be saved, if you choose, for things that are important to your family, like buying a home, providing for a child's education, for food, for clothing, all the things that real people need more than Government needs them. This is a choice about a brighter future for America. I am very pleased that I was able to support a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution in my first remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It will send a credible message to all of the world and its economic markets. It will mean long-term economic growth. It will give greater control of our foreign-held debt. It will restore integrity to our budget process. Finally, this debate will show American families that they have a choice for a brighter future. Thank you, Mr. President.