S7236 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

Whether or not you believe that we 

should put U.S. forces at risk to carry 

out this ground mission, namely to 

help extract UNPROFOR, if the decision is made—and as yet it has not 

been made by the United Nations nor 

NATO—I am certain that the Members 

of the U.S. Senate will want to support 

the President, and provide that aid 

that is necessary to perform the extraction of those troops from the 

ground areas. 

I am also certain that every Senator 

in this Chamber would support funding 

to ensure that our forces are trained 

and equipped to facilitate that extraction. That is the type of thing we are 

talking about here. 

Last year we had to provide a supplemental. There is no way the President 

nor the Secretary of Defense can anticipate the contingency operations 

and the level of funding associated 

with those operations. That is why we 

must fully fund the basic budget of the 

Department of Defense and rely less 

and less on the supplemental type of 

funding. 

We learned in Operation Desert 

Storm that well-trained troops 

equipped with modern weapons and 

equipment suffer fewer casualties if 

they are properly trained, properly 

equipped, and properly supported 

logistically. That is what we are talking about in seeking this added funding. 

I regret that the Senate did not 

adopt that amendment today, and 

somehow we will have to revisit this 

issue and do the very best we can to 

make sure that the men and women of 

the Armed Forces today are as 

equipped, trained, and otherwise supplied as we have done historically 

throughout these many years since 

World War II for our forces who volunteer, All Volunteer Forces. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the 

Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SANTORUM). The Senator from Texas. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I 

want to commend the Senator from 

Virginia. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I think when we are here on 

the floor debating some of the toughest 

decisions that we are ever going to 

make in our lifetime, that these 

things, like the defense budget that 

lost today on the floor, will be coming 

back. We will be able to continue to debate the role of defense, and I think 

when we finish this bill that we will see 

a little shifting of the priorities towards stronger national defense for 

just the reasons that the Senator from 

Virginia states, that we have things 

coming up that were unforeseen that 

are not put in the budget, like the need 

for American troops to help with the 

U.N. evacuation of Bosnia, which seems 

to be a possibility on the horizon. 

But the point is that these things are 

going to happen, and we are going to 

have to budget in a way that allows for 

those eventualities and those emergencies. 

So, I think the point here is that we 

are here tonight talking about some of 

the toughest decisions that we are ever 

going to make. We are trying to do the 

responsible thing. 

I appreciate the Senator from Virginia and his leadership in the national 

defense area. I appreciate his coming 

out tonight to talk about those priorities. 

So, I thank the Senator. 

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I 

could ask the Senator from Texas to 

yield just for a moment. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to 

yield. 

Mr. WARNER. We are fortunate that 

we have the services of the Senator 

from Texas on the Armed Services 

Committee. She was one of the three 

sponsors of the amendment today to 

try to adjust this funding upward. As 

we talked, she did so because of the 

briefings we had before the Armed 

Services Committee. Indeed, the Presiding Officer this evening is a member 

of the Armed Services Committee, the 

Senator from Pennsylvania. We have 

been briefed on the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction, an everincreasing threat, the proliferation of 

short-range ballistic missiles. 

We have also been advised by General 

Clapper, of the Defense Intelligence 

Agency, that there are no less than 60 

geographic areas in the world today 

which he considers—repeat, which he 

considers—could erupt into the type of 

combat which might require the necessity for the intervention of our allies, 

or, indeed, possibly the United States. 

So I thank the Senator from Texas 

for joining this debate tonight, and 

particularly commend her for her leadership today on an amendment to try 

to restore some of the funding. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Virginia. I am very pleased 

to have him in support. 

I want to yield the floor to the Senator from the State of Washington because I know he has been very active in 

the budget debate trying to save the 

Medicare system for the people of this 

country. 

That is what we are doing. That is 

what we have been doing this week and 

what we are going to be doing in the 

next few days. We are going to be doing 

the things that are necessary to save 

the Medicare system so that when our 

future generations need this care, it 

will be there because we have done the 

responsible thing this week in the Senate. 

So I am happy to yield to the Senator from Washington. 

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington. 

f 

A MOST CONSEQUENTIAL VOTE 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this 

Senate is now less than 24 hours from 

one of the most consequential votes it 

has taken literally in decades. Sometime late tomorrow, it will have the 

opportunity for the first time in more 

than 25 years to vote for a budget resolution which will very clearly and very 

decisively put this country on a path 

to a balanced budget. Already, we have 

seen the positive impact of the very 

fact that this debate has begun. We 

have seen it in an increase once again 

in the value of the dollar, a value that 

collapsed on the occasion of the failure 

of the balanced budget amendment. We 

have seen it in lower interest rates, 

lower interest rates that mean that 

more and more Americans now can 

purchase the home of their dreams, can 

borrow money to begin or to expand a 

small business, can begin those businesses which will provide opportunities 

for others. 

This has taken place just because for 

the first time the people of the United 

States believe that this new Congress, 

the House and the Senate, are serious 

about terminating a state of affairs in 

which each year we add $200, $250, and 

$300 billion to the burdens imposed 

upon our children and grandchildren 

for spending for programs we are unwilling to pay for. 

And yet, in spite of the lip service 

given by almost all Members to the abstract desirability of a balanced budget, resistance will continue in a rear 

guard action, in close votes on the 

floor of this body, from those who are 

absolutely dedicated to the status quo, 

who feel that while maybe it might be 

a good idea someday to have a balanced 

budget, not, O Lord, in our time, not 

with our votes. Or, if it is desirable to 

do it now, always in a different way 

than that proposed by what I confidently expect to be a majority of this 

body tomorrow evening. 

Now, Mr. President, I do not think it 

appropriate for us to disguise the fact 

that there will be programs reduced, 

cut, the growth slowed in programs 

that provide desirable dollars for a 

wide range of interest groups in this 

country, and they will let their views 

be heard. They are represented eloquently by Members of this body who 

can see the trees or perhaps the leaves 

on the trees but not the forest itself, 

for whom a balanced budget, fiscal responsibility, the exercise of a moral responsibility to our children and grandchildren not further to subject them to 

debt is less important than a particular 

group or a particular program. 

And so this contest which began at 

the beginning of this Congress and will 

reach one of its climactic votes tomorrow is a contrast between those who 

believe in, who speak for, who demand 

a different and more responsible direction for this country and those who, 

like the President of the United States, 

simply believe that the status quo is 

perfectly all right. Their view is the 

single worst thing we could possibly do 

would be to return a single dollar now 

being taken in the form of taxes from 

any group in the American people to 

the pockets of those American people 

even if that dollar came from a fiscal 

dividend resulting from a balanced 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7237 

budget, came because we will pay less 

in interest on the national debt as interest rates decline, came because the 

economy grew and more people were at 

work at better jobs as a result of what 

we do. 

It is ironic that the President’s chief 

economic adviser, Laura Tyson, is 

quoted as having said recently, 

Any effort to reduce Government spending 

takes a dollar out of the economy which 

means a dollar in reduction in demand in the 

economy so it increases the contractionary 

risks on the economy. 

Mr. President, I think that states all 

too well the views of this administration and of those who oppose this budget resolution. Their view is that the 

only real prosperity comes from dollars 

spent by the Federal Government. In 

fact, that statement by Ms. Tyson is so 

extraordinary that one would expect 

her to suggest to us that we perhaps 

spend another $100 billion during the 

course of this year borrowed from whoever would lend it to us because obviously that is the road to prosperity. If 

we cannot subtract $1 billion because it 

will have a contractionary effect, presumably we add $1 billion or $10 billion 

or $100 billion so we can spend our way 

into prosperity. But that is exactly 

what this administration has been 

doing, and it does not work. 

Not only will this budget benefit the 

economy, not only will it mean more 

dollars in the pockets of individuals as 

they look to purchase their homes or 

start or expand their businesses or look 

for new opportunities, it will also mean 

a discipline on the Government itself. 

Perhaps we will not end up having 163 

different and competing job training 

programs. Perhaps we will not have 

dozens or more of competing specific 

kinds of educational programs or subsidies for one business or group or another. Perhaps—and I am convinced 

this will be the case—we will use this 

budget to reform the Medicare health 

insurance fund so that it will actually 

be there in 7 years for the people who 

need that hospital insurance. Certainly 

this administration has ignored completely the voices of its own trustees of 

the Medicare hospital insurance fund 

who have told us and the administration that something must be done or 

that insurance fund will go bankrupt. 

But that is later; that is in the time of 

another President, another Congress; 

they can worry about it. 

That seems to be the status-quo view 

which we are fighting so diligently to 

change. 

So, Mr. President, it is well worth 

our while, well worth the while of 

those Senators who have chosen to be 

here this evening to take one last opportunity to speak to their colleagues 

and to the country about the radical 

change in direction that we propose, a 

direction of fiscal responsibility, a direction of exercising our responsibilities to future generations, a direction 

which can lead us to prosperity, a direction which can benefit every citizen 

in this country. That, on the one hand, 

and, on the other hand, a passionate 

defense of the status quo: Nothing is 

wrong with this Government; all of the 

programs it has ought to be continued; 

we cannot do anything; we should go 

on automatic pilot. 

That is a disappointing set of criticisms of our society today, Mr. President. It is not what last fall’s election 

was about. I hope that with the help of 

the majority of my colleagues that tomorrow a majority in this U.S. Senate 

will put this country on a different 

path, a path that it has not trod for 

many years, a path to a better America. 

Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri. 

f 

WAGING WAR AGAINST THE 

HUMAN SPIRIT 

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, as we 

continue to debate the budget resolution setting the spending levels for the 

next 5 years, we do so with the knowledge that one of our greatest challenges is moving the Nation’s needy 

from governmental dependence to economic independence. 

One of our challenges is to ensure 

that hope and opportunity are defining 

characteristics for all Americans. This 

was the challenge 30 years ago when 

the great movement reshaping world 

politics was the end of colonialism. 

John Kennedy celebrated the ‘‘desire to 

be independent,’’ as the ‘‘single most 

important force in the world.’’ Eventually this movement revealed its power 

from Asia to Africa to South America. 

The problem with imperialism was 

not just its economic exploitation, it 

was its influence on culture. It undermined traditional ways and institutions, and it was inconsistent with 

human dignity. 

Why? Because imperialism rewarded 

passivity and encouraged dependence, 

required citizens to live by the rules of 

a distant elite. It demanded people be 

docile in the face of a system that they 

could not change. It was an attack, not 

just on national sovereignty, but on 

national character. 

What our Washington-based welfare 

system has done, particularly to 

women and children, has been to fashion a new form of colonialism. It created an underclass that is paid to play 

by the rules that lead to dependence, 

rather than act with independence and 

dignity. Our welfare system rewards 

behavior that keeps people powerless. 

It thwarts the efforts of private and religious charitable organizations to care 

for the needy. It discourages the genuine compassion of the American people. Our welfare system has waged a 

war against the human spirit. 

Our goal in welfare should not be to 

maintain an ‘‘underclass′′ in as comfortable as possible circumstances. Yet 

that is precisely what our welfare system has done. Cash benefits anesthetize their suffering. Food stamps relieve their hunger. Health care and 

housing are provided. But the hope, the 

dignity, and the integrity of independence are forgotten. 

Consider, just briefly, what our current welfare system has wrought. The 

numbers alone are enough to numb the 

senses. Since 1965, we have spent more 

than $5 trillion, a cost higher than that 

of waging the Second World War—

fighting poverty. Yet today, there are 

more people, a greater percentage of 

Americans, living in poverty than ever 

before. And our safety net has not 

acted well, the safety net has become 

more like quicksand. 

In 1965, when President Johnson 

launched the war on poverty, there 

were approximately 14.7 million children in poverty. They constituted 

about one in every five children in 

America. But in 1993, there was a 

greater percentage of children in poverty than there were in 1965 when the 

Great Society programs were launched. 

It is pretty clear that the Great Society experiment has not been so great 

for America’s children. 

Of all age groups in the nation today, 

children are the most likely to be poor. 

In 1991, a study of the poverty rates in 

eight industrialized nations revealed 

that American children were almost 

three times as likely to be poor as children from the other nations studied. 

The character of the poverty we face 

today is also a more deeply entrenched 

poverty in which generations of people 

are born, live, and die without the experience of holding a job, of owning a 

home, or of growing up with a father’s 

love and discipline. 

Go to our inner cities—or just a few 

blocks from this building—and you will 

meet a generation fed on welfare and 

food stamps, but starved for nurture 

and hope. You will meet young teens in 

their third pregnancy. You will meet 

children who are not only without a father, but do not know any children 

with a father. You will talk with sixth 

graders who do not know how many 

inches there are in a foot—having 

never seen a ruler—and with first graders who do not know their ABC’s because no one ever took the time to 

teach them. 

The political elites that have spent 

and taxed in recent decades have redistributed wealth beyond the dreams of 

Roosevelt and Johnson combined. But 

in the Government’s war on poverty, 

poverty is winning and the casualties 

are the poor, and the casualties are our 

children. The casualties also include 

the future, because we have piled budget after budget high with debt. Hope 

and opportunity are missing in action. 

Programs and policies that once were 

judged by the height of their spending 

must now be judged by the depth of 

their failure. This is no longer a source 

of serious debate, no longer a matter of 

partisan politics, but it is a matter of 

national concern—it is a concern that 

has been reflected in our news magazines, on the covers of U.S. News and 

Newsweek, and Time. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS