[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5620-S5624]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             FRESHMAN FOCUS

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise 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. 
[[Page 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 three-fourths 
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 
[[Page S5622]] 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.
  [[Page 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 
[[Page S5624]] 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 a-moldering 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.

                          ____________________