May 1, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5869

away from themselves as problem solvers for themselves. As a result, they become dependent, and when they become dependent, they become less free.

That is what this debate is all about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the

Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I

actually promised my colleague from

Illinois that I would limit my response

to 5 minutes, but I am so moved by

what my colleague from Texas had to

say, I would like to respond.

Mr. President, I hardly know where

to start, but I can assure my colleague

that it is quite possible to turn toward

God and to turn toward religion and to

have values and spirituality in your

life and believe, as the Committee on

Economic Development believed, a

business organization which issued a

report a few years ago, that one of the

ways that we do well with an effective,

successful private sector is to make

sure that we invest in our children

when they are young.

It is simply the case that if we do not

invest in our children when they are

young, making sure that each and

every child has that equality of opportunity, which is what my parents

taught me was what America was all

about, then we pay the interest later

on with high rates of illiteracy and

dropout and drug addiction and crime

and all of the rest.

Mr. President, when we talk about

will there be a higher minimum wage,

the answer from my colleague from

Texas is no. From what I think I just

heard my colleague say, when we talk

about whether or not higher education

will be affordable, for some sort of reason there is nothing the Government

can do, we do not really need to have

Pell grants or low-interest loans or

work study, but, Mr. President, what

has made this country a greater country is to make sure that each and every

young person has that opportunity.

Nobody talked about the Government

doing everything. That is a caricature.

That is just sort of political debate.

We have a strong private sector, and

that is what makes this country go

round, but we also think there is a role

for the public sector, and that is to

make sure that we live up to the promise of this Nation, which is equality of

opportunity.

I do not think the people in the United States of America believe that

whether or not you receive adequate

health care or not should be based upon

whether or not you have an income. I

think people believe that each and

every citizen ought to have decent

health care. I heard my colleague criticize the post office. I can tell you one

thing, at least they do not deliver mail

according to your income. Everybody

gets their mail regardless of their income.

I heard my colleague talk about welfare. My God, you would think AFDC

families caused the debt, caused the

deficit. I was not here during the years

some of my colleague served here, but

if my memory serves me correctly, in

the early 1980’s, we were told what you

want to do is dramatically reduce

taxes—that was euphemistically

called—I ask my colleague from Illinois, I think I am correct—the Economic Recovery Act. What happened

was we eroded the revenue base and

moved away from any principle of progressivity, I say to my colleague. I am

sorry he is not here.

Poor people do pay taxes. Many people are poor in the United States of

America, work 40 hours a week, if not

more, 52 weeks a year, and they pay

Social Security taxes. More wage earners, more ordinary Americans pay

more in Social Security taxes than in

taxes. We have dramatically reduced

the corporate rates and, indeed, there

has been too much of a pressure on

middle-income and working families.

But this argument that the problem is

that we have relied too much on an income tax just simply does not hold up

by any kind of standard if you look at

it with any rigor.

I think the welfare benefits, the

AFDC benefits in some States—I cannot remember Texas—are about 20 percent of poverty. People in the United

States of America believe the children

have a right to be all that they can be.

People in the United States of America

believe we should invest in higher education. People in the United States of

America believe that an educated,

high-morale work force is critical to

economic performance. And people in

the United States of America believe

that it is a combination of a strong private sector and also a Government that

can effect good public policy that can

lead to the improvement of lives of

people in our communities that makes

the difference. That is what this debate

is about.

I yield the floor.

Several Senators addressed the

Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

BATTLE AGAINST POVERTY

fMr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will try

not to strain the patience of my colleague from Washington.

First, in response to the dialog that

has just taken place between the Senator from Texas and the Senator from

Minnesota, the Government clearly is

not the answer for all of our problems.

But I would point out that when we

had what was called a war on poverty—

which was really not a war on poverty,

but at least a battle against poverty—

we ended up at one point with 16 percent of the children of America living

in poverty, down from 23 percent. We

are now back up to 23 percent, and we

ought to do better. That is Government

policy, it is private sector, it is all of

us working together.

PEACEKEEPING CONTRIBUTION

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Sunday’s

New York Times has an article entitled

‘‘Poll Finds American Support for

Peacekeeping by U.N.,’’ written by

Barbara Crossette. It is a poll conducted of 1,204 people by the Center for

International and Security Studies at

the University of Maryland and by the

Independent Center for the Study of

Policy Attitudes in Washington.

Let me just read a couple of paragraphs:

There was a general perception among

those polled that about 40 percent of United

Nations peacekeeping troops are American,

and that this should be halved to 20 percent.

In fact, 4 percent of peacekeepers are American.

I do not know where the 4 percent

figure in the Times comes from. The

last figure I saw was as of March 6 and

at that point, the United States was

No. 20 in its contribution and less than

4 percent. Jordan, with 3 million people, was contributing more than twice

as many peacekeepers as the United

States with 250 million people. Nepal

was ahead of us at that point.

The article also says:

Asked about the cost of the Federal budget

of international peacekeeping, half of the

sample in the poll gave a median estimate of

22 percent. Less than 1 percent of the military budget is actually spent on these

operations . . .

Mr. President, we do have a choice

here, and that is whether we are going

to work with those countries or whether we are not. To use the old overworked phrase, if the United States is

not going to be the policeman of the

world, we have to work with other

countries.

Here let me add that one of the

things that we get all emotionally

hung up about is whether U.S. troops

can be under a non-U.S. commander.

The reality is that back since George

Washington had troops under a French

commander, we have had troops under

foreign commanders. I do not know

why we get so hung up on this. It does

not bother me, frankly, if the next

NATO commander should be a Canadian, or a Brit, or an Italian, or one of

the other NATO countries. I think that

is a perfectly plausible thing.

If we want other countries to work

with us around the world, we will, on

occasion, have to have American

troops under foreign commanders.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the

New York Times article.

There being no objection, the article

was ordered to be printed in the

RECORD, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Apr. 30, 1995]

POLL FINDS AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR

PEACEKEEPING BY THE UNITED NATIONS

(By Barbara Crossette)

UNITED NATIONS, April 28.—As Congress

considers making significant cuts in contributions to United Nations peacekeeping,

the findings of a new study show that Americans may not only be supportive of such operations but are also willing to see missions
S5870 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 1, 1995

become more aggressive, even when Americans are involved.

The study also found that about 80 percent

of those questioned believed that the United

Nations had the responsibility to intervene

in conflicts marked by genocide. But Americans in the poll and in group discussions indicated that they knew little about the extent and cost of United States participation

in peacekeeping.

There was a general perception among

those polled that about 40 percent of United

Nations peacekeeping troops are American,

and that this should be halved to 20 percent.

In fact, 4 percent of peacekeepers are American. The absence of television reporting of

operations that do not have a substantial

American involvement may at least in part

explain this misperception.

Asked about the cost to the Federal budget

of international peacekeeping, half of the

sample in the poll gave a median estimate of

22 percent. Less than 1 percent of the military budget is actually spent on these operations, although Washington is assessed 31

percent of the costs of United Nations

peackeeping operations. Total costs amount

to about $2 billion, the assessment plus supplemental costs, of the $270 billion Federal

military budget.

The study was based on a poll conducted by

the Center for International and Security

Studies at the University of Maryland and

by the independent Center for the Study of

Policy Attitudes in Washington.

The results of the study did show some

‘‘softening’’ in support for peacekeeping generally, said Steven Kull, of the Program on

International Policy Attitudes at the center.

A little more than a year ago, 84 percent of

those polled indicated strong support for

United Nations peacekeeping. This year,

that figure was 67 percent.

But 89 percent of the people polled said

that when there was a problem requiring

military force, it was best for the United

States to work with other countries and the

United Nations in dealing with it.

The study questioned 1,204 people through

a method known as a random-digit-dial sample, with a margin or error of 3 to 4 percentage points. It also drew on focus-group discussions in Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico

and Virginia.

At the Heritage Foundation in Washington, Larry DiRita, deputy director for foreign policy and defense, expressed skepticism of polls that ask about issues like

peacekeeping in very broad terms.

‘‘The American people are basically very

generous and want to do good,’’ he said in an

interview, adding that citizens are quick to

respond when faced with images of starvation, violence and displacement. But he said

he believed that this changes markedly when

people are presented with concrete choices

about sending Americans into one dangerous

situation or another, especially when they

have seen disturbing images on television.

‘‘A general American optimism comes out

in polls,’’ he said. ‘‘But when faced with reality, they take a more skeptical view.’’

In the questioning and discussions, a majority of people voiced frustration with the

peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and suggested that it eroded the long-term reputation of the United Nations. Mr. Kull said a

focus-group comment that ‘‘the United Nations has no clout’’ seemed to reflect the

widespread sense that the real problem with

peacekeeping was its ineffectiveness.

WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE?

THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES

fMr. HELMS. Mr. President, more

than 3 years ago I began making daily

reports to the Senate making a matter

of record the exact Federal debt as of

the close of business the previous day.

As of the close of business Friday,

April 28, the exact Federal debt stood

at $4,852,327,350,096.60, meaning that on

a per capita basis, every man, woman,

and child in America owes $18,419.52 as

his or her share of the Federal debt.

It is important to note, Mr. President, that the United States had an opportunity to begin controlling the Federal debt by implementing a balanced

budget amendment to the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Senate did not

seize their first opportunity to control

this debt—but rest assured they will

have another chance during the 104th

Congress.

If Senators do not concentrate on

getting a handle on this enormous

debt, the voters are not likely to overlook it next year.

THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY

SEARCH AND RESCUE TEAM’S

fWORK IN OKLAHOMA CITY

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise

today to praise the members of the

Montgomery County Maryland Search

and Rescue Team for their work in

Oklahoma City. This team worked

among the death and destruction of

Oklahoma City, driven by the hope

that they would find another survivor

within the tons of debris of the Alfred

P. Murrah Federal Building.

I cannot stress the gratitude that I

feel as the Senator for Maryland to

this group of dedicated heros, who

worked 12 hours a day, for days on end,

in their search for survivors. This

group concentrated on search and rescue, ignoring the danger of falling debris and the mental agony of this tragedy.

Mr. President, I feel the dedication

this team and others like it displayed

in Oklahoma City exemplifies the

American spirit, a spirit of helping

those in need to overcome a crisis. The

brave men and women of the Montgomery County Search and Rescue Team

placed their lives on the line for their

fellow Americans; this is nothing less

than an act of heroism.

The Montgomery County team

worked at the center of the blast zone

of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building by shoring up and removing giant

slabs of concrete as members of the

Oklahoma City Fire Department removed bodies. Working at the center of

the blast zone, at ground zero, was dangerous duty. I know that I speak for all

of my colleagues as I recognize this

Montgomery County team because

they were an example of the many

dedicated Americans who came from

all across the Nation to lend a helping

hand in the wake of this disaster.

Mr. President, I conclude my remarks today by passing along to the

Montgomery County Search and Rescue Team a much deserved thank you

for a job well done. Thank you for restoring the notion that the American

spirit is still alive and well. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

CONCLUSION OF MORNING

fBUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning

business is closed.

COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY AND LEGAL REFORM ACT

fThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, the Senate will now

resume consideration of H.R. 956, which

the clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal standards and procedures for product liability litigation, and for other purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration of

the bill.

Pending:

(1) Gorton amendment No. 596, in the nature of a substitute.

(2) McConnell amendment No. 603 (to

amendment No. 596) to reform the health

care liability system and improve health

care quality through the establishment of

quality assurance programs.

(3) Thomas amendment No. 604 (to amendment No. 603) to provide for the consideration of health care liability claims relating

to certain obstetric services.

(4) Wellstone amendment No. 605 (to

amendment No. 603) to revise provisions regarding reports on medical malpractice data

and access to certain information.

(5) Snowe amendment No. 608 (to amendment No. 603) to limit the amount of punitive damages that may be awarded in a

health care liability action.

(6) Kyl amendment No. 609 (to amendment

No. 603) to provide for full compensation for

noneconomic losses in civil actions.

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the balance of the day will be used to debate

the McConnell amendment which proposes to add detailed provisions with

respect to medical malpractice legislation to the substitute which is currently before the Senate, primarily on

the subject of product liability.

All amendments, except for leadership amendments, that deal with medical malpractice under the order are to

be offered today and debated throughout the day. There will also be approximately 1 hour for debate on all of those

amendments tomorrow before 11

o’clock in the morning, when there will

be votes on everything leading up to

and including the McConnell amendment, after which time, with certain

narrow exceptions, medical malpractice will no longer be discussed as

a part of this bill.

So I want to express the hope that

Members who wish to speak on the subject of medical malpractice or to offer

additional amendments to the McConnell amendment will come to the floor

and debate those issues today. Nothing

in the order prohibits speeches or discussions on the legislation broader

than medical malpractice, but this is