S5620 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE April 25, 1995

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how

much time do we have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twentyfive minutes fifteen seconds.

Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator

from Nebraska like 10 minutes, 5 minutes?

Mr. KERREY. Ten minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 10 minutes to

the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent to be added as an

original cosponsor to this legislation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered. The Senator

from Nebraska is recognized.

Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. KERREY pertaining to the introduction of S. 722 are located in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint

Resolutions.’’)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I

FRESHMAN FOCUS

frise 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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank

the Senator for yielding. I am pleased

to be able to join my freshman colleagues in talking about the agenda for

the coming weeks and months as we return from our spring recess and have

the opportunity to discuss with our

constituents exactly what is on their

minds. I can assure you, it is the same

thing that it was in November.

People are still clamoring for institutional, economic, and political change.
April 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5621

They recognize that some of the monumental achievements that we have already made in the first 100 days, many

of the issues that have laid dormant in

this institution for years and years,

have been acted upon, such as requiring Congress to live by the same rules

that apply to the rest of society, stopping the tide of unfunded mandates,

and giving the President line-item veto

authority. So we have made progress.

But they want to continue our assault

on the status quo. I cannot think of a

better way to demonstrate our commitment to changing the status quo

than to show the American people that

deficit reduction and balancing the

Federal budget is going to be on the

top of our agenda.

I know that many people have said

here on the floor of the Senate when we

were debating a constitutional amendment to balance the budget that we do

not need a constitutional amendment,

that it is not necessary. Unfortunately,

history has just disproved us in that regard because we have had a fiscal losing streak with 26 years of unbalanced

budgets. Mr. President, 1969 is the last

time in which we had a balanced Federal budget.

I hope that we can disprove history. I

hope that we are able as we meet this

week in the Senate Budget Committee

on Thursday to begin the process of

marking up the budget resolution that

we will engage in a bipartisan effort to

balance the Federal budget. Our goal is

to put our budget on a glidepath toward balancing it by the year 2002.

So I hope all who have mentioned

that we do not need a constitutional

amendment will join us in that effort

to ensure that we will in fact have a

statutory commitment toward the balancing of the Federal budget.

The administration unfortunately

has perpetuated the fiscal status quo

with a budget that was submitted by

the President several months ago. In

fact, back in 1992 the President said he

would offer a 5-year budget plan that

would balance the Federal budget. He

has not done that. He then said that he

would reduce the Federal budget deficit by half by 1996. Of course, that has

not occurred. Instead, we received a

budget that only eliminates one agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, out of a grand total of a budget of

$1.2 trillion. In fact, the Congressional

Budget Office reestimated the administration’s projections on deficits. And it

is quite alarming as well as disturbing

when you see the upward trend of the

deficits as well as the interest payments. That is what makes our action

on the budget deficit and balancing the

Federal budget so compelling.

According to the CBO, the 1996 deficit

will be $211 billion, not the $197 billion

projected by the administration. The

1998 deficit will rise to $231 billion, not

the $196 billion projected by the administration. In 1999, the deficit will reach

an estimated $256 billion, far from the

$197 billion the administration had

forecasted. Finally, in the fiscal year

2000, the Congressional Budget Office

said the deficit will reach $276 billion

rather than the $194 billion the administration has projected.

It means according to CBO

reestimates that the size of our national deficit over the next 5 years will

increase by 55 percent. It will grow

from 2.5 percent of the gross domestic

product to 3.1 percent of the GDP,

which is contrary to what the administration had indicated, that in fact they

had said that the deficit would be 2.5

percent of GDP and decline to 2.1 percent of GDP. Obviously, that is not

now the reality. The gap between the

administration’s projections on the

deficits and the Congressional Budget

Office really amounts to more than

$209 billion that will be spent over the

next 5 years; $209 billion. It is incredible when you consider the fact that by

the year 2000 we will in fact have had

our revenues exceed the 1995 revenues

by $323 billion.

So you would say then we must have

a much smaller deficit in the fiscal

year 2000. Well, no. We are not going

to. We are going to have a deficit of

$273 billion. It will be $100 billion more

than it will be in 1995, even though we

will have $323 billion more in additional revenue.

We will be spending $422 billion over

the next 5 years. That represents a 28-

percent increase during a time when

inflation is projected to rise by half

that rate.

The administration said it is going to

cut the budget over the next 5 years by

$144 billion. In fact, it is being

reestimated by the Congressional

Budget Office. In fact, the administration’s budget will only reduce Federal

spending by $32 billion over the next 5

years, meaning just about $6 billion a

year, thirty-nine one-hundredths of 1

percent of total Federal spending,

hardly enough, and certainly is not

going to put us on a stable fiscal path

for the future. And that is what we are

talking about, the future for this country because deficits are affecting not

only taxes but productivity, savings,

the deficit, and employment. It affects

all of those categories. We need to be

investing in the future. Otherwise, we

are going to create a second-rate economy.

That certainly is not exaggerated because 1969, the last time the Federal

Government had a balanced Federal

budget, the dollar traded for 4 German

marks and 360 Japanese yen. And, since

then, while the Federal debt has increased by 1250 percent, or $4.5 trillion,

the dollar has lost two-thirds of its

value against the mark, and threefourths against the yen.

I guess in reality what we are saying

is that it will continue to cost the

American people millions, if not billions, of dollars because the link between a lackluster and unfocused and

uncontrolled Federal budget policy and

a decline of the dollar is indisputable.

In fact, the Federal Reserve Chairman,

Alan Greenspan, told the House Budget

Committee recently that all told a

Federal program of fiscal restraint

that moves the deficit finances to

sounder footing almost surely will find

a favorable reception in financial markets. He added that a key element in

dealing with the dollar’s weakness is to

address our underlying fiscal balance.

In layman’s terms that means only one

thing. It means balancing the Federal

budget.

So I hope we can work in unison on a

Republican and Democratic basis and

in conjunction with the administration

to produce just that, a balanced Federal budget, not only for this generation but future generations to come.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, at

this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank my

colleague from Pennsylvania, and

would also just say in response to the

remarks of our colleague from Maine

that she has been a long-time advocate

beginning with her service in the House

of Representatives for sensible fiscal

policy, and in particular support for

the balanced budget amendment. I just

again express my appreciation to her

for all of the hard work that she did

there and for what she has since carried forward to this body in attempting

to get us to support the balanced budget amendment this year. We failed by

one vote. But I think, as has been

noted, we are going to get it passed

sooner or later.

One of the things my constituents

told me during the last 2 weeks when I

was out in Arizona was that we need to

balance the Federal budget. In fact, if

there was any one theme that came

across during the visits that I had with

people all over the State in my tour of

the State, it was that the Senate needed to keep up the good work that the

House began, and that includes passing

the balanced budget amendment. When

I asked them what they thought about

the first 100 days and the House Contract With America, they were overwhelmingly in support of it.

We traveled during the first week. We

got in my old Suburban and traveled to

Miami and Globe and Thatcher, and

Pima. These are names that are not

known to very many of you, but they

are little towns in Arizona. We had a

town hall meeting in Safford with 130

people one night. They were all just as

interested and engaged as you would

hope that our American citizens would

be on these issues that we have been

working on here.

Their primary message was we are

appreciative of what the House did.

Now you in the Senate need to do the

same thing. They were pleasantly surprised when I noted we had already

passed three of the contract items here

in the Senate. That message had not

really gotten out too much. They were

also somewhat skeptical that the Senate would do as well as the House, and
S5622 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE April 25, 1995

in particular with regard to the budget

issues.

We went on to the small towns of

Willcox, and Benson. These are ranching communities primarily, and regulatory reform is very high on their

agenda. They deal with the Federal

Government every day because many

of them ranch on Federal lands and in

other respects have dealings with the

Federal Government, which are not always the most pleasant.

So their view was that regulatory reforms, the kind of things that the Senate will be marking up in the Judiciary

Committee tomorrow, the Dole regulatory reform bill, are the kind of reforms that they want us to carry forward. Of course, that was done in the

House of Representatives as part of its

Contract With America.

Then over to Yuma, AZ, up to Flagstaff, AZ, the Grand Canyon, where

there is obviously a need to support

our National Park System to begin to

make it a better experience for the now

millions of people who visit the Grand

Canyon every year and also to balance

very carefully the environmental concerns with the other economic needs of

our citizens.

All of these subjects were discussed

during these 2 weeks as I went around

the State, but there is a sense of optimism that we have actually changed

things. There is a desire that we keep

going. I think there is still a residuum

of skepticism that the Congress really

will follow through with these promises, but people are very pleasantly

surprised that so far it seems to be

happening.

Then finally, Mr. President, when the

very tragic events of just a week ago

began unfolding in Oklahoma City, it

began to remind people all over this

country of how unified we are as a people in condemning that kind of violence, in feeling the most heartfelt

sympathy for the victims of the tragedy, and for sharing a commitment to

bring to justice the people who are responsible.

I spent a good deal of my time, since

I serve on both the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee,

talking to people about the threats

that are out there and for the need to

support the agencies that we count on

to prevent these threats or to bring to

justice the people responsible when

they occur. Our agencies, such as the

Central Intelligence Agency and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, we are

extremely pleased with the way this investigation has gone so far, but we

know that there is much work to be

done.

It is important for us to recognize

that this does not just happen automatically. It happens because hundreds

of dedicated Americans are working

very long hours under difficult circumstances to find out what these

kinds of groups are up to, to try to prevent them from acting and, when they

do, to bring them to justice. We cannot

reflect on it just when there is a tragic

event such as this. We have to support

these agencies throughout the year and

year in and year out.

I am very disturbed by the calls that

I have heard in the beginning part of

this year from those who would dismantle the Central Intelligence Agency, for example, because the cold war is

over, not appreciating the fact that

there are hundreds of organizations

around the world, some State sponsored, others not, but all of which have

in mind conducting the kind of terrorist activities that occurred in Oklahoma City. It can happen from without

our borders as well as within, and it is

critical that we remember that and

support these organizations when the

appropriations issues come before us

very soon. It is the only way we will be

able to bring to justice the people responsible for this kind of heinous activity.

So, Mr. President, it was an Easter

recess that was edifying for all of us

and at the end something that because

of the tragedy I think unified us all in

expressing support for the people in

Oklahoma City.

I thank the Chair.

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?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven

minutes and forty seconds remain.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 6 minutes to

the Senator from Tennessee, Senator

THOMPSON.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

NO TIME TO GO LUKEWARM

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I

thank my colleague from Pennsylvania.

I, first of all, wish to also commend

the Senator from Arizona. I think his

remarks concerning the need for our

strong law enforcement agencies was

most timely and most eloquent. Before

I address the main point I wanted to

make, I must reinforce that.

I think too often in this country,

whether it be our law enforcement

agencies or our military, once we pass

a crisis, it is as if we do not need them

anymore; once we have won a war, it is

as if we do not need the military anymore. And historically we have

downsized too rapidly and too much. I

think sometimes when things are

peaceful here domestically, we feel we

do not need a strong CIA, we do not

need a strong FBI and law enforcement

authorities. These people are out here

every day and, as the Senator pointed

out, they need our support on a continuous basis. They need the support of

the Congress on a continuous basis, not

just when there is a crisis, when people

tend to overreact.

So I am very proud of these agencies.

We must do everything we can to make

sure that they remain strong, not talking about cutting back the budgets of

these agencies, certainly not talking

about eliminating them as some have

done because they have gotten in a little trouble, and certainly they need

oversight. But I think the tragic events

of the last several days have just gone

to underscore the fact that we must remain strong both domestically and

with regard to foreign matters.

I was also impressed with what my

colleague from Arizona said concerning

the time he had over this last recess. I

shared many of the same experiences

he had. We ran the last campaign based

on a very simple notion, and that was

the notion of changing the way we do

business in this town, in the Congress

of the United States. And now we begin

to see in newspaper articles, people

have gone back home, and the President indicates that some people are not

so sure, maybe things are moving too

fast, people are not willing to make

sacrifices—sure, they want these

things done in the broad sense of the

word, but when it comes to them, individuals are too selfish to be willing to

make any kind of incremental adjustment if it affects them directly; et

cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

That is not my experience. I have

gone back to Tennessee every weekend

since I was elected to the Senate.

These last few days have been no different than any other days I have spent

out in the country, in country stores,

in cafes, talking to people. The message that I get consistently is that this

is no time to go lukewarm on our basic

commitments, on basically what we

ran on. It is not time to go soft on our

commitment for a balanced budget

amendment. It is not time now to get

cold feet on deregulation. It is not time

to get lukewarm on welfare reform.

These things are our commitments,

these things they expect us to follow

up on, and they look forward to the

leadership that they think we are providing. They only ask that we be fair.

I have never talked to a grandparent

in the State of Tennessee who was not

willing to make some incremental adjustment if they thought it would go to

the benefit of their grandchild. And

that is the message we have to bring

back here. For all of those among our

colleagues and in the media who think

that Americans are so individually

self-centered and selfish that we are

not willing on an individual basis to do

the things necessary to make for a

stronger country, to make a stronger

country for our children and grandchildren, I will have to point out to

them that they are very much mistaken. The House of Representatives,

of course, has been very active and

very busy. They have gotten a lot of

attention over their agenda and what

they have done.
April 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5623

I would just like to say this. Regardless of what any individual might

think about the Contract With America or any particular provision of the

contract, the House of Represenatives

did a very, very significant thing that

overshadows any individual provision

in that contract or the contract in its

totality, and what they did was what

they said they were going to do. Never

before in the history of this country

was a program so plainly and simply

laid before the American people which

said, if we get elected, this is what we

will do.

They got elected and then they went

about doing it. Now it has come to the

Senate. It has been pointed out many

times that the Senate is not the House.

It has been pointed out that things will

move slower in the Senate because that

is what it is designed to do. This is

where the coffee is poured into the saucer to cool.

All of that is true. All of that is well

and good. I have no problem in spending days on end in the Senate debating

the national issues, debating the issues

of strong contention where people have

legitimate concerns over issues of

broad policy that affect the future of

this country. I have no problem with

debating those matters on end. We do

not have any agenda over here except

to do the right thing in the right

amount of time.

What I have problems with is taking

days on end on matters which essentially are not controversial, where at

the end of the day they pass by 90 or 95

votes to 5. I see no reason why we

should get hung up on delay over here

for delay’s sake. I hope that does not

happen. If we have controversial matters that take days, let us take them.

But if we have things that we know the

American people want and we know

that most of the Members of this body

want, I say let us get on with it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair. I

yield the floor.

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.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There

are 4 minutes and 50 seconds remaining.

The Senator from Oklahoma.

THE AGENDA

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator from

Pennsylvania for the time.

As he stated, in just a few minutes,

Senator NICKLES and I will make some

comments concerning a resolution that

will be voted on at noon today having

to do with the disaster that struck

Oklahoma less than a week ago.

However, I do think on this subject of

the agenda that there is a misconception that is floating around out there

that the Senate has not been doing

anything because most of the focus has

been on the other body. And it is understandable, because that is where

most of the activity was. Procedurally,

things happen quicker in the House

than they do in the Senate.

For those of us who have served in

the House of Representatives and are

now serving in the U.S. Senate, I can

understand for the first time in my

lifetime why our Founding Fathers

perceived that we should have a bicameral system. And, in fact, things

are more deliberate here. And I think

it is, without pointing any fingers or

being critical, that many things pass

the House of Representatives with the

understanding that they know that it

will get a more thorough examination

when it gets to the Senate.

But, having said that, I would have

to say that the Senate has done an incredible amount of work. While I cannot document it, I would suggest that

the Senate has accomplished more in

the first 90 days or the first 100 days of

this session than they have at any

other time. We passed the line-item

veto. We passed congressional accountability, forcing Members of Congress to

live under the same laws that they

pass. We passed unfunded mandates.

Those of us who have previously been

mayors of major cities understand that

that is a major problem facing the

cities and other political subdivisions

around the country. And we have done

that. We have had moratoriums passed.

I really believe that the Senate has

acted responsibly, but in a much more

deliberative way.

Now the time has been pretty much

occupied on what are we going to do on

the budget. I think it is somewhat

tragic, and I have to be critical of our

President. When he talks about the deficit reduction, he makes comments as

if we are actually doing something

about reducing the debt. And it is a

matter of terminology, that if there is

anything that can come from this debate, I hope that the American people,

and I think they are, are aware right

now that we are talking about two different things when you talk about debt

and deficit.

In fact, the President’s budget that

has come in has built into it deficits

each year that will have a dramatic increase on our Nation’s debt.

I am still of the belief that we in

Congress, in both Houses of Congress,

as well as the administration, are incapable of fiscally disciplining ourselves in the absence of a balanced

budget amendment to the Constitution. And I really believe it is going to

happen. Of course, it did pass the other

body, and it lacked one vote of passing

in the U.S. Senate.

I would remind those who share my

concern for this nonpassage that it is

under a motion for reconsideration and

that we are going to be able to do

something about it, I believe, before

this term is over.

So, Mr. President, Senator NICKLES

will be joining me in just a moment

and we will have an opportunity to

talk a little bit about the tragedy that

struck my State of Oklahoma.

I yield back my time.

Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

THOMAS). The Senator from New York.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask

that I might be allowed to speak for up

to 12 minutes on the matter which the

Senator from Oklahoma indicated will

be the subject of the remaining of our

morning debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair.

THE PARANOID STYLE IN AMERICAN POLITICS

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as we

think and, indeed, pray our way

through the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, asking how such a

horror might have come about, and

how others might be prevented, Senators could do well to step outside the

Chamber and look down The Mall at

the Washington Monument. It honors

the Revolutionary general who once

victorious turned his army over to the

Continental Congress and retired to his

estates. Later, recalled to the highest

office in the land, he served dutifully

one term, then a second, but then on

principle not a day longer. Thus was

founded the first republic, the first democracy since the age of Greece and

Rome.

There is not a more serene, confident, untroubled symbol of the Nation in all the Capital. Yet a brief

glance will show that the color of the

marble blocks of which the monument

is constructed changes about a quarter

of the way up. Thereby hangs a tale of

another troubled time; not our first,

just as, surely, this will not be our last.

As befitting a republic, the monument was started by a private charitable group, as we would now say, the

Washington National Monument Society. Contributions came in cash, but

also in blocks of marble, many with interior inscriptions which visitors willing to climb the steps can see to this

day. A quarter of the way up, that is.

For in 1852, Pope Pius IX donated a

block of marble from the Temple of

Concord in Rome. Instantly, the American Party, or the Know-Nothings—‘‘I

know nothing,’’ was their standard

reply to queries about their platform—

devined a Papist plot. An installation

of the Pope’s block of marble would

signal the Catholic uprising. A fevered

agitation began. As recorded by Ray
S5624 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE April 25, 1995

Allen Billington in ‘‘The Protestant

Crusade, 1800–1860’’:

One pamphlet, ‘‘The Pope’s Strategem:

‘Rome to America!’ An Address to the

Protestants of the United States, against

placing the Pope’s block of Marble in the

Washington Monument’’ (1852), urged Protestants to hold indignation meetings and contribute another block to be placed next to

the Pope’s ‘‘bearing an inscription by which

all men may see that we are awake to the

hypocrisy and schemes of that designing,

crafty, subtle, far seeing and far reaching

Power, which is ever grasping after the

whole World, to sway its iron sceptre, with

bloodstained hands, over the millions of its

inhabitants.’’

One night early in March 1854, a

group of Know-Nothings broke into the

storage sheds on the Monument

Grounds and dragged the Pope’s marble

slab toward the Potomac. Save for the

occasional ‘‘sighting,’’ as we have come

to call such phenomena, it was never to

be located since.

Work on the monument stopped.

Years later, in 1876, Congress appropriated funds to complete the job,

which the Corps of Engineers, under

the leadership of Lt. Col. Thomas I.

Casey did with great flourish in time

for the centennial observances of 1888.

Dread of Catholicism ran its course,

if slowly. Edward M. Stanton, then

Secretary of War, was convinced the

assassination of President Lincoln was

the result of a Catholic plot. Other manias followed, all brilliantly described

in Richard Rofstadter’s revelatory lecture ‘‘The Paranoid Style in American

Politics’’ which he delivered as the

Herbert Spencer Lecture at Oxford University within days of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Which to this

day remains a fertile source of conspiracy mongering. George Will cited

Hofstadter’s essay this past weekend

on the television program ‘‘This Week

With David Brinkley.’’ He deals with

the same subject matter in a superb

column in this morning’s Washington

Post which has this bracing conclusion.

It is reassuring to remember that

paranoiacs have always been with us, but

have never defined us.

I hope, Mr. President, as we proceed

to consider legislation, if that is necessary, in response to the bombing, we

would be mindful of a history in which

we have often overreacted, to our cost,

and try to avoid such an overreaction.

We have seen superb performance of

the FBI. What more any nation could

ask of an internal security group I cannot conceive. We have seen the effectiveness of our State troopers, of our

local police forces, fire departments,

instant nationwide cooperation which

should reassure us rather than frighten

us.

I would note in closing, Mr. President, that Pope John Paul II will be

visiting the United States this coming

October. I ask unanimous consent that

Mr. Will’s column be printed in the

RECORD.

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

RECORD, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 25, 1995.]

FEVERED MINDS, MARGINAL MEN

(By George F. Will)

The Tennessee marble on the side of the

Morgan bank building in lower Manhattan

still bears, defiantly, scars inflicted on Sept.

16, 1920, when a horse-drawn wagon loaded

with sash weights exploded amid a lunchtime

crowd. Among those blown to the pavement

was Joseph P. Kennedy. He was one of the

fortunate. The blast, which shattered windows over a half-mile radius killed 30 and injured more than 100.

There were no arrests, or explanations.

Someone probably had taken too seriously

some socialist critique of capitalism, but the

incident fed J.P. Morgan Jr.’s many phobias,

which included: ‘‘The Jew is always a Jew

first and an American second, and the

Roman Catholic, I fear, too often a papist

first and an American second.’’

Today, as the nation sifts and sorts the

many jagged and tangled fragments of emotions and ideas in the aftermath of Oklahoma City, it should remember that this was

not America’s baptism of lunacy. Bleeding

Oklahoma City is a few hundred miles down

the road from Pottawatomie in what once

was bleeding Kansas, scene of a memorable

massacre. John Brown’s body lies amoldering in the grave, but his spirit—massacres in the name of God—goes marching on

in the paranoia of a few.

A very few, on society’s far fringes. Which

is progress. After Brown killed the mayor of

Harpers Ferry and seized the arsenal, he was

sentenced to be hanged. Yet America’s preeminent intellectual, Ralph Waldo Emerson,

said of him, ‘‘That new saint, than whom

nothing purer or more brave was ever led by

love of men into conflict and death . . . will

make the gallows glorious like the cross.’’

Morgan wrote the words above about Jews

and Catholics to A. Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard, of which institution Morgan

was an overseer. It is unthinkable that such

sentiments could be expressed in such circles

today.

Today when the fevered minds of marginal

men produce an outrage like the Oklahoma

City bombing, some people rush to explain

the outrage as an effect of this or that

prominent feature of the social environment.

They talk as though it is a simple task to

trace a straight line from some social

prompting, through the labyrinth of an individual’s dementia, to that individual’s action.

Now, to be sure, it is wise to recognize that

ideas, and hence the words that bear them,

have consequences. Those who trade in political ideas should occasionally brood as William Butler Yeats did when he wrote this

about the civil war in Ireland:

Did that play of mine send out

Certain men the English shot?

Did words of mine put too great strain

On that woman’s reeling brain?

Could my spoken words have checked

That whereby a house lay wrecked?

However, an attempt to locate in society’s

political discourse the cause of a lunatic’s

action is apt to become a temptation to extract partisan advantage from spilled blood.

Today there are those who are flirting with

this contemptible accusation: If the Oklahoma City atrocity was perpetrated by individuals gripped by pathological hatred of

government, then this somehow implicates

and discredits the current questioning of the

duties and capacities of government.

But if the questioners are to be indicted,

the indictment must be broad indeed. It

must encompass not only a large majority of

Americans and their elected representatives

but also the central tradition of American

political thought—political skepticism, the

pedigree of which runs back to the Founders.

The modern pedigree of the fanatics’ idea

that America’s government is a murderous

conspiracy against liberty and decency—a

money-making idea for Oliver Stone, director of the movie ‘‘JFK’’—runs back to the

1960s. Those were years John Brown could

have enjoyed, years when the New York Review of Books printed on its cover directions

for making a Molotov cocktail, and a student died when some precursors of the Oklahoma City fanatics practiced the politics of

symbolism by bombing a building at the University of Wisconsin.

Today, when some talk radio paranoiacs

spew forth the idea that the AIDS virus was

invented by Jewish doctors for genocide

against blacks, it is well to remember that

the paranoid impulse was present in the first

armed action by Americans against the new

federal government. During the Whiskey Rebellion 200 years ago a preacher declared:

‘‘The present day is unfolding a design the

most extensive, flagitious and diabolical,

that human art and malice have ever invented. . . . If accomplished, the earth can

be nothing better than a sink of impurities.’’

It is reassuring to remember that

paranoiacs have always been with us, but

have never defined us.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, seeing the distinguished Senators from

Oklahoma on the floor, I know we all

look to hear from them. I thank the

President and yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business

for 10 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered. The Senator

from Oklahoma is recognized.

DISASTER IN OKLAHOMA

fMr. INHOFE. Mr. President, 5 days

ago we had a disaster that occurred in

Oklahoma. I happened at the time to

be in Dallas in a regional meeting on

base closure when I got a call from the

President of the United States. At that

time, the entire Nation, only hours

after the blast, was watching as the

smoke still had not yet cleared.

The President advised me as to what

the Federal Government was doing. He

told me about the FEMA team that

was coming in, about the FBI, about

law enforcement, all having to do with

the tragedy, and asked if there was

anything more that I could think of

that could be done from the Federal

level. Of course, I told the President

there was nothing else I could think of

that could happen, and I proceeded

back to Oklahoma.

When you see something like this

that happens and you see the resources

that are poured in from the Federal

Government, the State government,

the city government, but then most of

all from the individuals, it is, indeed,

heart warming. I agree with Billy Graham, during the memorial service,

when he made the statement that it

draws us together, it brings out the

best in people when a tragedy of this

nature takes place. It is one thing to

watch it on the television, and it is another thing to experience it knowing

that you have personal friends that are