S5540 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE April 7, 1995 

regional peace and worldwide nuclear 

nonproliferation; undermine the tremendous economic progress that has 

occurred in South Asia; launch a nuclear arms buildup in South Asia; and 

perhaps most frightening, increase the 

likelihood of nuclear weapons falling 

into the hands of terrorists. Indeed, 

any individual who has an interest in 

the future economic development of 

South Asia should have serious concerns with the Clinton administration’s proposal. 

I recognize that a number of U.S. 

aerospace firms have a strong interest 

in this issue. The transfer of F–16’s 

would mean new business, new contracts, and new jobs here at home. I 

suspect these firms are putting tremendous pressure on the Clinton administration to push for military aid to 

Pakistan. 

Mr. President, the aid package may 

mean more jobs at home, but it would 

come at a heavy price on a global scale. 

I do not believe any issue is more important to the security of all free people than nuclear nonproliferation, particularly in potential hot spots such as 

South Asia. I am concerned that the 

transfer of F–16’s would spark a nuclear arms race in South Asia. 

The Clinton administration has traveled this same road before. The catalyst for the nuclear tightrope walk 

that occurred in North Korea was the 

perception by officials in Pyongyang 

that the United States was not serious 

about nuclear nonproliferation. I would 

have thought that after North Korea, 

the Clinton administration would have 

learned an important lesson. It does 

not appear they have learned. 

Once again, the administration is 

willing to be the catalyst for destabilization. The wrong signals are there. 

I fear India will be forced to rethink its 

current military force structure if 

Pakistan takes delivery of the F–16’s, 

including resumption of their nuclear 

program, deployment of short-range 

weapons, and even development of 

long-range options. 

Further, Mr. President, we must consider not just the instability between 

India and Pakistan, but instability 

within Pakistan itself. With all due respect to Prime Minister Bhutto, I have 

very serious concerns about the ability 

of her civilian government to hold its 

military leaders accountable to civilian-based policies. I urge my colleagues 

to examine closely this military-civilian chain-of-command issue. 

We also must examine the inability 

of Mrs. Bhutto’s government to respond effectively to the shocking wave 

of violence sweeping her country. Terrorist groups, such as the Harkatul 

Ansar—the Movement of Friends—are 

based in Pakistan, but have links to 

similar groups in Iran. The New York 

Times recently reported that a massive 

worldwide network of Islamic terrorism was traced to a university in 

Peshawar—the University of Dawat 

and Jihad. This is not a run-of-the-mill 

institution of higher learning. Students go there to seek advanced degrees in worldwide terrorism. Graduates of this university have applied 

their lessons of death in North Africa, 

the Middle East, and Asia. 

Terrorist violence is a mortal plague 

within Pakistan, leaving more than 

1,000 people dead since the beginning of 

last year. This wave of terror recently 

claimed the lives of two American diplomats, who were tracked down and 

killed in cold blood. Even Prime Minister Bhutto questioned whether or not 

she had the resources necessary to 

crack down on the militant organizations operating within her country. 

Others question whether or not Prime 

Minister Bhutto has enough political 

capital to take the tough action needed 

to restore stability. 

Therefore, I shudder at the thought 

of a nuclear capable government in 

South Asia that is incapable of 

controling its own military command 

or restoring order at home. This internal instability increases the possibility 

that nuclear weapons could fall into 

the hands of a terrorist state or organization. It boggles my mind that President Clinton would propose an aid 

package that would add both to the 

Government’s nuclear capability and 

to the region’s instability. 

This fact raises yet another problem, 

which gets to the very essence of the 

Pressler amendment. Mr. President, 

the Pressler amendment was meant to 

be a strong warning to an ally: If you 

go nuclear, it will come at the expense 

of U.S. aid. The United States cannot 

condone—through taxpayer assistance—the Government of Pakistan becoming a nuclear power. 

This policy has worked to a large degree. Pakistan has at least frozen the 

development of its nuclear program. A 

number of states that pursued active 

nuclear weapons research programs in 

the 1980’s have abandoned them, including Argentina, Brazil, South 

Korea, Taiwan, and South Africa. They 

responded to American diplomacy and 

their own good common sense. It is 

worth noting that both South Korea 

and Taiwan have antidemocratic neighbors and the temptation to hide behind 

a nuclear shield is undoubtedly high. 

In one of the worst ways imaginable, 

the Clinton administration’s proposed 

military aid package would be seen as 

a certification and acceptance of Pakistan as a full-fledged nuclear power—a 

signal that runs counter to our own 

support and insistence for the ratification of the NPT. Pakistan is not a signatory of the NPT. It does not allow 

inspections. Yet, these facts do not 

seem to be important to the Clinton 

administration. Just as ominous, the 

proposed military aid package tells 

other countries that there are no longterm penalties for going nuclear. 

Mr. President, I have made this 

point: The administration’s proposal to 

change the Pressler Amendment is a 

bad policy. I urge my colleagues to review it carefully, but skeptically. Let 

me reiterate: I want to see Pakistan 

succeed economically. I want to see 

peace achieved both within and beyond 

Pakistan’s borders. I want to see our 

nuclear nonproliferation goals 

achieved. The administration can 

achieve all those policies by withdrawing its proposed aid package and 

standing firmly behind the Pressler 

amendment. 

f 

THE REAL MEANING OF THE 

CONTRACT WITH AMERICA 

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for almost 100 days now, we have been hearing about the Contract With America—

here in Washington and in my home 

State of South Dakota. 

This week we get their contact with 

America. Every time you open a newspaper or turn on your TV or your 

radio—or even your computer—some 

Republican is speaking in superlatives 

about what is happening in Congress. 

Not everyone shares that enthusiasm. 

One of the most astute assessments I 

have heard of the Republicans’ 100 days 

was offered last week by a Capitol tour 

guide. When someone asked him what 

had passed so far in this Congress, he 

said, ‘‘About 12 weeks.’’

I can tell you a lot more has happened in South Dakota during those 12 

weeks. Farmers and ranchers, who 

have been gearing up for the spring 

planting and helping their livestock 

through the calving season, are grappling with the harsh realities of low 

commodity and livestock prices, hoping there will be enough to support 

their families. 

On Main Streets in cities and towns 

across South Dakota, small business 

owners and employees are working 

longer and harder just to maintain 

their incomes. 

In other words, life is going on in 

South Dakota, and people are trying to 

move forward, looking toward change 

in Washington to help them realize 

their dreams. 

The tradition of scrutinizing the first 

100 days really began, as you know, 

with President Franklin Roosevelt. 

Most students of government still consider the first 100 days of the New Deal 

to be the most successful in the history 

of the Federal Government. And no 

wonder. By the end of President Roosevelt’s first 100 days, Congress had 

passed an extraordinary package of 15 

bills that fundamentally changed the 

relationship between business and Government, and individuals and Government. 

It was an agenda that was firmly 

rooted in FDR’s belief, as he said, that 

‘‘the future lies with those wise political leaders who realize that the great 

public is interested more in good government than in politics.’’ That is a 

sentiment you won’t find in the Republicans’ Contract With America. For it 

was politics pure and simple—the 1994 

election and a mountain of polling 

data—that gave us the so-called contract. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

April 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S5541 

Franklin Roosevelt knew to be skeptical of people, like so many in this 

new Republican majority, who promise 

easy solutions to hard problems. He 

could easily be speaking of today’s Republican majority when he commented 

on their predecessors more than 60 

years ago. 

‘‘Let me warn you and let me warn 

the Nation,’’ he said, ‘‘against the 

smooth evasions of those who say, ‘Of 

course we agree with all these things. 

‘‘‘We believe in Social Security. We 

believe in work for the unemployed. We 

believe in saving homes. Cross our 

hearts and hope to die, we believe in all 

these things. But we do not like the 

way the present administration is 

doing them. Just turn them over to us. 

We will do all of them. We will do more 

of them. We will do them better. And 

most of all, the doing of them will not 

cost anybody anything.’’’

Does this sound familiar? It should. 

That is the Big Lie on which the contract is constructed: ‘‘We can balance 

the budget. We can increase military 

spending. We can give more tax breaks 

to the rich. And it will not cost anybody anything. In fact, you and your 

family are going to get money back.’’

Clearly, the promise to fundamentally change the Federal Government 

sounded very good to some people last 

November. But were they voting for 

the Republican contract? The fact is, 

they were not. Less than 5 percent of 

Americans had even heard of the contract on Election Day. Even now, polls 

show that the more people hear about 

the contract, the more nervous they 

get. And with good reason. To paraphrase Pogo, we have met the enemy in 

the Republicans’ contract, and it is us. 

It is not big-money special interests 

the Contract targets—Republicans 

have invited the lobbyists into their offices to rewrite the laws. The enemy in 

the Republican contract is not even the 

infamous waste, fraud, and abuse. 

It is working families and their children in South Dakota and across the 

Nation. 

They can wrap it up in new 

spinmeister packaging, but the struggle at the center of the contract is the 

same struggle that has defined the difference between the Republican and 

Democratic Parties for generations. 

It is the struggle between the rich 

and the rest of us. 

We do not have any billionaires in 

South Dakota who will benefit from 

the tax loophole Republicans are fighting to protect that allow billionaires to 

renounce their citizenship to avoid 

paying taxes on the fortunes they have 

made in our country. 

We do not have a lot of powerful corporate lobbyists who have gained unprecedented access to the Congress. 

What we do have in South Dakota 

are hard-working families who wamt 

change, who want more opportunities 

for themselves, and a better future for 

their children. 

Republicans were on the wrong side 

of this struggle before, and they are on 

the wrong side now. We have heard a 

lot about the casualties of the contract, but the biggest casualty is not a 

person or a group. It is Americans’

sense of values—our sense of fairness. 

Most of all, it is our fragile but essential belief that if we work hard, we can 

make a better life for ourselves and our 

kids. 

This ethic, this belief, was ingrained 

in all South Dakotans. This belief, this 

value, is essential to our survival as a 

democracy. 

De Tocqueville wrote that it is our 

values, even more than our laws, that 

enable Americans to maintain this democracy, and that fundamental insight 

into our character remains true to this 

day. 

If people do not know the difference 

between right and wrong, all the prisons in the world will not keep us safe. 

If children come to school with no 

sense of discipline, no respect for authority, the best teachers and, the best 

computers in the world will not make a 

difference. And if young people grow up 

in a society that does not reward honest work, no welfare reform plan in the 

world will work. 

We cannot solve our problems with a 

law or a check—or even the threat of 

no check. If we want to restore the 

American dream, we have got to restore American values. And that means 

strengthening America’s families. 

Families are where values are taught 

and learned. But teaching values takes 

time. It takes time. 

And time is something that most 

families have less of every year. I hear 

this every time I go home. 

One story this year that didn’t get 

perhaps quite as much attention as it 

deserved was a series of strikes by 

autoworkers who were protesting mandatory 50- and 60-hour workweeks. 

The workers said the extra pay just 

wasn’t worth the price they were paying in burnout and in time spent away 

from their families. 

The conflict many workers feel between trying to be both good providers 

and good parents was best summed up 

by a single mother at a GM factory in 

Michigan who had just put her son in 

counseling and just learned that her 18- 

year-old daughter was pregnant. 

You know what she said? She said, ‘‘I 

keep thinking that maybe if I’d been 

able to spend more time with them this 

wouldn’t have happened.’’

That is a conflict more parents live 

with each year. From the late 1960’s to 

the late 1980’s, the average workyear 

for American workers increased by 163 

hours. You know what that is? That’s 

an extra month each year. 

Today, fewer than one-third of American families have time to eat even one 

meal a day together. And nearly 7 million children—including half a million 

pre-school kids—spend at least part of 

each day all alone. 

Why are parents spending less time 

with their kids? The answer is simple: 

In spite of an unprecedented effort by 

the Clinton administration to create 

more than 6 million new jobs, the real 

income of most Americans is declining. 

Each year, it takes more people 

working more hours in a family just to 

afford the basic. Eighty percent of 

America’s families have not seen their 

incomes rise since the 1970’s. Eighty 

percent. And this is true despite huge 

increases in two-income and even 

three-income families. 

Even in the 1990’s, the richest onethird of Americans are getting richer, 

while incomes for everyone else keep 

falling. And let me tell you, that is 

fundamentally wrong. And Democrats 

must fight it. 

Not long ago I had a young father 

tell me, ‘‘Either I can spend time with 

my family or support them—but not 

both.’’ Those are not conditions for 

teaching moral values. They are an invitation to moral anarchy. And the extreme agenda of the new majority—despite all its pious and populist rhetoric—is almost certain to make matters worse. 

Because it is designed to reward the 

rich and the well-connected at the expense of America’s middle-class families. That is wrong and Democrats 

must fight it, make no mistake: The 

new Republican agenda is worse than 

indifferent to the needs of working 

families. It is downright hostile to 

them. It is trickle-down economics 

with a vengeance. And if it is enacted, 

it will destroy much of the middle 

class. 

If you doubt it, just look at some of 

the tax changes Republicans are proposing: 

One of the more moderate members 

of the Republican party is proposing 

that we repeal income taxes on stock 

profits. In other words, let’s tax only 

wages. And some Republicans want to 

protect the tax loophole that allows 

billionaires to renounce their U.S. citizenship to avoid paying taxes on the 

fortunes they have made in this country. 

You know, when George Washington 

found out that Benedict Arnold was a 

traitor he probably thought about a lot 

of things. He probably thought about 

flogging him. He probably thought 

about hanging him. He probably 

thought about taking everything he 

owned. But I guarantee you one thing 

he never thought about was giving him 

a tax break. 

What kind of contract is that? 

Of course, many of us feel that the 

contract is more noteworthy for what 

it leaves out than for what little it actually does. The contract offers no 

blueprint to create more jobs or betterpaying jobs. And, it offers no plan to 

fix any of the other problems that are 

undermining Americans’ economic security. 

Quite the opposite, the Republican 

agenda makes it harder for people to 

climb the economic ladder by gutting 

worker training programs and college 

loans. 

Under the Republican contract, 27,165 

South Dakota college students will pay 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S5542 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE April 7, 1995 

more for their student loans. Who 

knows how many who cannot afford the 

higher priced loans will simply drop 

out. 

It makes it harder for poor families 

to escape welfare by blocking any increase in the minimum wage. 

The Republican agenda leaves virtually every American family at risk 

of financial ruin by refusing to reform 

health care. For some, the past 100 

days simply means that more people 

are without health insurance in South 

Dakota and a lot of people—and hoping 

they do not end up like some of their 

neighbors—the 1,200 retirees of the 

Morrell meatpacking company in 

Sioux Falls, who suddenly lost their 

health benefits 2 months ago. 

And, the contract undermines our effort to enforce laws protecting Americans from polluted air and water, from 

spoiled meat and killer toys and a 

whole host of other dangers. 

The big winners in the contract are 

the lobbyists and special interests, who 

Republicans have invited—quite literally—into committee rooms to write 

the laws as they choose. 

The big losers, of course, are working 

families, who are going to end up picking up the tab for the special interests—the same as they did in the 1980’s. 

That is wrong, too, and Democrats will 

fight it. 

The biggest problem with the contract is not simply that it threatens to 

bankrupt working families economically. It is also morally bankrupt. 

Democrats have a responsibility to 

challenge not just the details of the 

contract, but the underlying values as 

well. We need to raise our voices, particularly in the face of the extreme 

new agenda of the Republican Party. 

We need to find new ways, new technologies, to communicate our basic beliefs, and, we need to expand the debate 

to include values that matter to working families. Values like fairness and 

tolerance, genuine opportunity, and 

generational progress. 

More important, we need to make 

sure that our values shape our public 

policy. Too often, government policies 

do not reflect our nation’s values. 

Sometimes they have actually exacerbate the conditions they were created 

to eliminate. 

No matter how noble their original 

purpose, when we try to protect failed 

programs, we undermine the credibility 

of government and thus the ability of 

government to help the people who deserve help. 

So, making sure our values shape our 

public policies mean, first of all, acknowledging when something is not 

working. Making sure our values shape 

our public policies also means reforming our welfare system so that it rewards work. It means encouraging families to be strong and to stay strong. 

Making sure our values shape our public policies means we need truth-insentencing laws. We need to hold people responsible for their actions. And 

we need to protect people from crime 

in the first place. 

President Clinton and a Democratic 

Congress last year passed a tough new 

crime bill that puts 100,000 more police 

on the street, including 77 in my home 

State. Now Republicans want to gut 

that bill. That is dead wrong. And 

Democrats will fight it. 

Making sure our values shape our 

public policies means we need to listen 

to average people, not campaign contributors. In Washington and in every 

State capitol in this country, holy 

wars are being waged with unholy 

amounts of money. People don’t know 

where the buck stops anymore. They 

only know it stops the debate. 

And this is wrong. And Democrats 

will fight it—by pushing for real campaign finance reform—in this session of 

Congress. 

Making sure our values shape our 

public policies means helping workers 

learn new skills so they can keep their 

job or get a new one. Not long ago, 

Speaker GINGRICH called unemployment insurance ‘‘vacation pay for freeloaders.’’ Republicans may think that 

makes a good sound bite, but it’s small 

and insensitive. If we value work, then 

let us treat workers with dignity. Give 

them the tools and training they need 

to earn their own way, and they will 

not need unemployment insurance or 

anything else from government. 

Finally, making sure our values 

shape our public policies means helping 

middle-class pay for college with affordable loans or the sweat equity that 

comes from national service. 

In asking Congress to do these 

things, Democrats are only asking the 

Republican majority to do what the 

American people expect them to do: to 

lead. Their refusal to even discuss our 

proposals makes it clear that Republicans do not oppose the way we Democrats have done the job of fighting for 

working families and children. They 

are fundamentally opposed to the job 

being done at all. 

I said at the beginning of my remarks that the American people did 

not vote for the Republican contract 

because most had not even heard of it. 

Instead, they were voting to continue 

the original Contract With America. 

They voted to make America a place, 

once again, where people still believe 

in values like tolerance and fairness, 

and parents still have the time to 

teach those values to their children. 

America can be what America was, a 

place where you can get ahead if you 

work hard. We can make America that 

kind of place again. But it’s going to 

take more than angry demagoguery 

and more than the mad dash of 100 

days. 

Americans understand that. Because 

leaders like Franklin Roosevelt taught 

us. President Roosevelt led this Nation 

through a depression and a world war. 

He knew that good government is government which unites this country, not 

divides it. It is government that offers 

hope, not fear—that proposes real solutions where there are real problems. He 

led, so others were willing to follow. 

As a former history professor, NEWT

GINGRICH should remember the words 

of his favorite President who said that 

‘‘the only limit to our realization will 

be our doubts of today.’’

While Democrats do not advocate 

going back to the programs of the New 

Deal, we believe that the values that 

shaped that agenda are as valid today 

as they have ever been. The realization 

of tomorrow must be built from the realization of strong national leadership 

today, the kind of leadership the American people have turned to throughout 

our history, and to which future generations must turn, not just for 100 

days, but for that many years, and 

more. 

f 

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A LARGER 

VISION 

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, in November of last year, Mr. Sam Halperin of 

the American youth policy forum addressed a statewide conference in 

Rhode Island on implementation of the 

new School-to-Work Opportunities Act 

of 1994. His thoughts bear careful consideration not only as we move this act 

from legislative provision to program 

but also as we approach reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act. 

Mr. Halperin is a distinguished educator whose views merit careful consideration. He has served as Deputy Commissioner in the old Office of Education, Deputy Assistant Secretary at 

the Department of Health, Education, 

and Welfare, and the director and first 

president of the Institute for Educational Leadership. 

I would ask that the full text of Mr. 

Halperin’s remarks be placed in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A LARGER VISION

(By Dr. Samuel Halperin) 

Thank you for your invitation to help develop Rhode Island’s plans for implementation of the School-to-Work Opportunities 

Act of 1994 (hereafter STWOA). I have no 

doubt that you will soon win one of the federal implementation grants, grants already 

awarded to eight other states. 

My only doubt is whether your vision will 

be as large-spirited and as bold as the federal 

Act itself. Will you seize the opportunity to 

rethink the essential nature of schooling at 

the dawn of the 21st Century? Will you construct a total quality system in which each 

of the parts supports and advances the welfare of all the other parts? That is the challenge. That is the opportunity. 

SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES ACT: 

‘‘HISTORIC, LANDMARK’’ LEGISLATION

Five features of the new Act qualify it for 

designation as ‘‘historic,’’ even ‘‘landmark,’’

legislation: 

One, previous federal legislation focussed 

mostly on the disadvantaged (Job Training 

Partnership Act, JOb Corps, ESEA Title I). 

STWOA is the most universal, non-meanstested effort to date. It is intended to help 

all students who have not yet completed 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS