[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6839-S6843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      FRESHMAN FOCUS ON THE BUDGET

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, our freshman focus group continues today 
and will continue on through the next week. [[Page S6840]] 
  I rise today to express my surprise and my disappointment at the 
position the administration has taken, and, indeed, the other side of 
the aisle, with regard to the budget, with regard to Medicare, line-
item veto, unfunded mandates, the rescission package, and the balanced 
budget amendment. In fact, on every issue that has come up since the 
beginning of this Congress, we have had the same approach, we have had 
the same reaction. And that position is to resist--``obfuscate'' has 
been used; that is a new word to me, but I think it means ``don't do 
anything''--and oppose with no alternative; to simply say no with no 
sign of leadership as to what an alternative solution would be to those 
issues.
  It is surprising, Mr. President, and disappointing to me that the 
President 2 years ago made a great issue out of change. He was going to 
bring to this place change, new Democrats, a reinvention of Government, 
a more user friendly Government, reduce the size. Great rhetoric. 
Except when it comes to doing it, when it comes to the tough part--and 
it is tough to change; it is tough to make changes in systems that have 
been there; it is tough to make changes in programs that have built up 
about them a constituency. And so it is tough.
  Talk is easy, but it is not easy to make the change. It is not easy 
to come to the snubbing post and really have to do it.
  Instead, it is really easy to revert to the old system, and that is 
more Government and more spending and more programs. That is the easier 
way to go. It is one that makes it less politically volatile and one 
that we do.
  Never mind that the programs have not solved the problems. Never mind 
that nearly everyone I think in this country believes that Government 
is too big and too intrusive and too expensive, a Government with 
nearly 3.5 million employees, thousands of programs, and literally 
hundreds of agencies and advisory groups.
  And, of course, even the administration argues for cuts. Secretary 
Shalala recently announced a major revision. I think it involves 2,700 
jobs--2,700 out of 62,000. That is hardly a major revision.
  But now, we do have a chance, Mr. President, to do something 
significant. We do have an opportunity for the first time in a very 
long time to make some significant changes, not only to reduce the 
cost.
  The budget argument is not just about dollars, although that is 
particularly important and significant. The real discussion and the 
real debate and the real opportunity is to take a look at Government 
and to examine now what the role of Government will be, to examine 
where we want to be in terms of the Government in the year 2000, when 
we move into a new millennia, what kind of a new century that we want 
to prepare for our children and our grandchildren if we do not do 
something by then. If we do not make changes by then, this Government 
will be able to afford only the entitlement programs and interest.
  We will have this year, in a couple of months, a vote to raise the 
debt limit to $5 trillion. And before the next 2 years is over, before 
the first Clinton administration is over, we will be having $6 trillion 
in debt. Some say, ``Well, that doesn't matter, particularly. Debt does 
not matter.''
  Debt does matter, as a matter of fact. Debt takes money out of the 
economy; money could be invested for other things. Maybe more to the 
point, the cost of interest will be soon the largest single line item 
in the budget. This year nearly $260 billion for interest alone. So it 
is significant.
  It seems to me the measure of good Government is to be able to look 
at programs and see if, in fact, they are doing the job, to measure the 
output, to measure the results.
  Unfortunately, I think it is fair to say that Government over the 
years in a nonpartisan way, when problems are not resolved by a 
program, we say, ``Well, this needs more money.'' And that may or may 
not be the case.
  The fact is it is more likely that what happens is that you need to 
change the program, you need to change the application of the funds. 
And to suggest that results will be different if you continue to do the 
same thing is kind of a fantasy. It gives us an opportunity to look at 
duplication. And there is great duplication. There is redundancy.
  There are 160 programs that have to do with moving from education to 
work. Now, everybody wants to do that. That is a great idea, and we 
should do it. It is a significant effort. But we do not need that many 
programs. They continue to add on.
  There is a list of them. It is sort of interesting. I think it was in 
the newspaper 2 days ago.
 Actually literally hundreds of basically advisory committees no one 
has ever heard of in the world. Quite frankly, if they disappeared, 
none of us would know the difference. So we need to do some of those 
things.

  Despite the first opportunity in 40 years, what is the strategy? I am 
afraid the strategy of the opposition is to object, to resist, to 
criticize, to filibuster. Let me say that filibuster is not the old 
classic filibuster where you stand on the floor for 72 hours and fall 
over from exhaustion. What filibuster is is hundreds of amendments that 
pile up so that we do not go anywhere, so that nothing happens, and 
that is what is happening around here. And that is too bad. Every issue 
this entire year has been handled that way. We do have to do something 
about that.
  Medicare is an excellent example. I do not think anyone can doubt 
that you have to do something about Medicare. It is not a brandnew 
idea. We have known it is coming. Medicare was started in the sixties. 
I believe there was one point where 19 million people were involved in 
the beginning. Now that is doubled. The first year in Medicare, I 
think, was a $1.2 billion expenditure. This year it is a $165 billion 
expenditure and going up at a rate of 10 percent a year, one that we 
cannot maintain.
  The trustees, which include three members of the Cabinet, have just 
given a report saying that unless we do something, in 2 or 3 years the 
program will be calling on the reserves and in 7 years it will be 
broke. We cannot let that happen. So we have to make some changes.
  The proposal that is being made is to reduce the percentage of growth 
from 10 percent a year to 7 percent a year. That is still a pretty good 
growth. That is the growth of health care in the private sector plus 
inflation.
  Some say, ``Well, there are more people.'' The fact is it increases 
the per capita spending which takes into account new participants. It 
increases the per capita spending from about $4,800 a year to $6,400 a 
year, and yet this will be attacked as a cut.
  What is the alternative? The alternative is Medicare goes broke. We 
can fix it. We can fix it, but we have to change, and we can do that.
  Mr. President, the opportunities are great. We are now dealing with a 
budget that continues to grow and, under the administration's plan, the 
deficit continues as it is as far as one can see. The package grows. 
The total package over $1.5 trillion a year grows at 5.5 percent a 
year. We are suggesting that we reduce that growth to about 3.5 percent 
a year. Hardly a cut.
  So we have a great opportunity, and I think the point is that voters 
said to us in 1994, and voters have said to us before, we have too much 
Government, that Government costs too much, that Government is not user 
friendly as it should be, we have overregulation. And that is true.
  I do not say those things particularly as criticisms, but just as a 
recognition of where we are, but with the happy thought that we can 
change that, and that, of course, is what is so remarkable about our 
democracy, what is so remarkable about our Government.
  Let me tell you that even though the request for change on the part 
of voters, on the part of citizens, on the part of you and me is not a 
new idea. It has been done for years. In the 1800's and every 
generation there was substantial change in Government. Now it becomes 
more difficult. Government is larger, there is more bureaucracy, there 
is more lobbying, there are more people who are constituents of 
programs, and it becomes much more difficult, but not impossible at 
all.
  As a matter of fact, I can tell you having been home, and going home 
every other week, I find my people, the people I represent in Wyoming, 
want some change. They know there is going to be some change, there is 
going to be some pain as there always is when you make your budget fit 
in your business [[Page S6841]] or in your family. And that is where we 
are.
  I think it is an exciting opportunity. We need to take a look at our 
objectives. Our objectives are to make Government more responsive, to 
take those areas, such as welfare, where we are committed to helping 
people who need help and fix the program so that we help them help 
themselves, and that is the way it ought to be.
  So we are there. We need to take the bull by the tail and look the 
problem in the eye. The objective is to have a solution. We can find 
it, taking a look at the role of Government, better ways of doing it, 
less Government in our lives, in responsible financial condition. We 
can do it, and I think it is a great opportunity. We will be talking 
about it this week. I think it is a watershed opportunity. We will make 
some big decisions this week over where we will be when the century 
changes in 7 years.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                               The Budget

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming. I 
must say that his remarks are both compelling and accurate and reflect 
the opportunity which we face in the U.S. Senate and for which the 
people sent us to the U.S. Senate. A job well done and items well 
stated, because they understand what happened here on May 11, just a 
few days ago, when Republicans annunciated their view for a brighter 
economic future, for financial stability, for fiscal integrity for the 
United States of America.
  On that day, Senator Domenici, and other members of the Budget 
Committee, passed a resolution that would reduce spending over the 
course of the next few years by a trillion dollars. It is a budget 
resolution that brings our budget into balance by the year 2002. When 
this happens, it will be eligible for categorization as one of the 
eight wonders of the world. It is one of those things people have said 
could not be done.
  But free people have the right to shape the tomorrows in which they 
live, and if we want to shape a tomorrow in which our children will 
live in a constructive way, we will have that kind of discipline which 
puts us on a balanced budget path and an enforceable balanced budget 
path by the year 2000 which sets us on a path for fiscal sanity and 
economic responsibility.
  The plan that has been annunciated, the plan brought forth by Senator 
Domenici, is a plan for which he and members of the committee should be 
commended. I personally want to make that special effort to thank them.
  These plans just do not happen in a vacuum. Someone has to make the 
tough judgments, someone has to be willing to take the tough stand, 
someone has to be willing to make the commitment, and Senator Domenici 
has done so.
  His resolve, his commitment, his dedication, his courage has not been 
matched on the other side of the aisle. What has been the Democratic 
response to the Republican plan? Well, we have had ad hominem attacks, 
misleading charges, empty rhetoric. At this momentous time in our 
history that requires decision, that requires courage, that requires 
commitment, the Democratic Party seems committed only to partisanship 
and to politics.
  So I think it is important that we ask again today where is their 
alternative? Where is their plan for a balanced budget? You and I and 
other Members in this Chamber endured a balanced budget debate, and we 
fell 1 vote short--1 vote short--because many on the Democratic side 
changed their votes to vote against a balanced budget this year. They 
said over and over again, ``All we need is the will and the courage, 
and the determination to balance the budget. We don't need an 
amendment.'' Well, now we have Senator Domenici who stands up and 
announces with will, courage and determination a balanced budget. And 
where are those who would support the balanced budget? They are not to 
be found.
 They were not to be found in the vote for the balanced budget 
amendment, and they are not to be found in the discussion of an actual 
balanced budget--except for criticism, except for partisanship. It is 
time that we have a united, bipartisan effort to achieve a balanced 
budget.

  I suggest that critics of our balanced budget plan, brought forward 
by Senator Domenici, ought to heed the counsel of the 16th President of 
the United States. In Lincoln's words, he put it this way:

       Those have a right to criticize who have a heart to help.

  You have a right to criticize if you have a heart to help. Well, we 
confront a fiscal crisis as great as any threat that we have confronted 
in this Nation, any threat we have ever faced, and calls for the 
maintenance of the status quo are insufficient. They are, in fact, 
irresponsible. Those who would criticize the move toward responsibility 
by instituting or institutionalizing the status quo are really saying 
they want to embrace irresponsibility. Inaction today will ensure 
decline for America tomorrow.
  Now, the story of our financial crisis has been told many times on 
this floor, but it bears repeating. If we do not act dramatically and 
quickly to balance the budget of the United States, we will find 
ourselves in a position of bankruptcy. If unreformed Medicare will be 
bankrupt in just 6 years, is this the alarmist position of partisan 
politicians? No, this is the announced report of the board of trustees 
of the fund which supports Medicare. And three members of that board 
are members of the President's Cabinet.
  There is a crisis in Medicare funding. We will not have the resources 
in the hospital trust fund in order to make the payments if something 
is not done. Yet, what has been the response of those who have said 
they want to balance the budget, but all we need is the will, the 
determination and the commitment to do it, and we do not need the 
balanced budget amendment? Well, they are just criticizing Senator 
Domenici and his report that would provide us an opportunity, a 
roadmap, which would carry us to a balanced budget. Medicare will be 
bankrupt in just 6 years. There is a real need for commitment and 
action.
  Without changes, we face a tremendous load of debt, and not only debt 
but the interest payments on the debt. In 2 more years, we will be 
paying more interest on the national debt than we spend in the entire 
defense budget of the United States of America. That seems 
incomprehensible, that just the interest on the national debt will be 
more than we spend in defending the interests of this country 
worldwide. By the year 2000, the national debt will reach close to $7 
trillion. We must act now to balance the budget. We cannot continue to 
mortgage the future of the children of this country because we refuse 
to have the discipline to balance our budget.
  Sadly, children who are born this year will end up paying just a 
little short of $200,000 in interest on the debt over their lifetime--
each child. The figure, according to the statisticians is $187,150 of 
interest that each child will have to pay on the national debt. It is 
time for their individual futures and our national future to be saved. 
We must act in the coming weeks and months.
  Now, through shared sacrifice we can ensure that the coming 
generation of Americans will share in the abundant riches and 
opportunities of this country if we have the discipline to restrain the 
debt. What is the proposal of the Republican Party? How would it affect 
America, and how would it change Government therapeutically? How would 
it benefit us so we can do what we ought to do on behalf of the 
children of this country? What is our plan?
  First, freeze congressional salaries, unless the budget is balanced 
by the year 2002.
  Second, cut foreign aid.
  Third, eliminate a number of unnecessary and duplicative programs. 
Just yesterday in the Foreign Relations Committee, there was a plan to 
consolidate the voices of America, the different representations of 
this country around the globe under the Secretary of State, saving 
almost $5 billion over the next 5 years.
  Abolishing nonessential governmental agencies. Democratic attacks 
aside, our plan provides sufficient funds to maintain the health and 
integrity of a whole range of important governmental services.
  These figures are important because those who would be the speakers 
of fear and the sowers of discontent, and [[Page S6842]] would suggest 
that our plan will not work, should understand that under the 
Republican proposal, Medicare will increase by 59 percent over the 7-
year life of the plan--a 59-percent increase. Medicaid will rise at 
over 5 percent annually. And Social Security is totally untouched by 
the program between the present and the year 2002. Spending on the 
Social Security program is expected to increase by 43 percent, from 
$354 to $483.7 billion.
  Indeed, Mr. President, the plan we will consider allows spending in 
all of Government to grow by an average of 3 percent annually, 
increasing by over one-half trillion dollars over the next 7 years the 
overall spending of Government.
  In this debate over the future of our country, I am reminded of the 
philosopher's words: ``They sought to heal by incantations a cancer 
which requires the surgeon's knife.''
  You cannot heal by just speaking words those things which require the 
surgeon's knife. The truth of the matter is that we are in a condition 
in this country where the scalpel of surgery needs to be applied to the 
cancer of national irresponsibility. We need to have the scalpel of the 
surgeon's knife cut out the unwanted and malignant growth which is 
taking over and depriving us of the ability to make good decisions 
regarding the future of this country.
  Mr. President, we are hearing all around us the familiar cries of the 
discredited and irresponsible philosophy. But we should not listen to 
the cries of those who do not have the will, do not have the 
dedication, do not have the commitment, who, while they said we did not 
need a balanced budget amendment, they now refuse to face up to the 
specific personal responsibility to operate with fiscal integrity.
  We were sent here by the American people with a demand and an 
expectation. They demand that we make the tough decisions, the same 
kind of decisions that are made around every kitchen table in America. 
When you sit down to figure out what you can and cannot afford, you set 
priorities to guard the vital interests of the family and you do away 
with those things that you can get by without. That is what the people 
sent us here to do. They demand that we stop business as usual in the 
U.S. Senate and that we embark upon something new and different for 
Government, and that is Government living within its means, Government 
that understands that there are limits. The people want the hand of 
Government out of their pockets. They do not want a Government handout. 
They expect us to listen and we ought to listen and we will listen.
  Well, our budget plan goes a long way. It goes all the way to 
balancing the budget on a controlled, understandable, doable, 
achievable plan by the year 2002. It is a plan that will not only 
benefit the people today, but it will benefit the children. It will 
provide for them the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labors, 
rather than just to try and retire a debt and pay interest for items 
that we have consumed. It is an opportunity for Members of this 
Congress, it is an opportunity for Members of the U.S. Senate; but more 
than an opportunity, it is a charge from the American public, and it is 
a responsibility we have to the generations to come.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Grams, from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if I may make an inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senator yields the floor to the Presiding Officer, 
rather than to another Senator, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. But I see that my colleague has risen, and I look 
forward to his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for no more than 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
                      freshman focus on the budget

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to begin debate on 
the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996, I rise with my fellow 
freshmen to offer our perspective on the challenge ahead.
  Mr. President, the individual Members of this class of freshmen 
Senators--11 strong--do not have much seniority. We do not chair 
powerful committees. But we do have one thing it seems many of our 
colleagues are missing--something far more valuable. We have the pulse 
of the people, and we always carry it.
  We took the pulse ourselves, during our Senate campaigns last year. 
At coffee shops, truck stops, town meetings, we heard from thousands of 
average Americans. They talked about high taxes and excessive, wasteful 
Government spending. They talked about Social Security and Medicare, 
and wondered if it would still be around for them, their children, and 
grandchildren.
  We listened, and we promised them that if they sent us to the Senate, 
we would fight to change things. We are deeply committed to change and 
to keeping our promises.
  If life in the Senate sometimes reminds me of the barnyard 
conversation between the chicken and the pig, as they argued over which 
one was more committed to the breakfast meal: ``I give eggs every 
morning,'' the chicken said proudly. ``I'm committed.'' ``Giving eggs 
isn't a commitment, it's participation,'' snorted the pig. ``Giving 
ham, now that's a commitment.''
  Sadly, this body too often seems content to deliver eggs when the 
people are demanding ham.
  Mr. President, this freshmen class is committed to following through 
on the promises we made last November. And for the next week, we'll be 
focusing our attention on the Federal budget.
  Year after year, when they ran things on Capitol Hill, the Democrats 
offered up budgets which raised taxes, sent Government spending 
spiraling out of control, and created massive deficits.
  The voters soundly rejected that mentality in November. They looked 
to the Republicans for an alternative, for a budget that could turn 
back 40 years of spending mentality and the belief that money will fix 
everything, especially if it's your money and Washington can spend it.
  Debate on our alternative begins today.
  Whatever form it eventually takes, a budget resolution that is truly 
serious about America's financial future must accomplish three equally 
important goals:
  We promised middle-class American families a budget that cuts taxes, 
and we will deliver.
  We'll deliver for the Smith family, and the Johnsons and the Joneses, 
average American families where both parents work, earn $48,270, and 
take home $31,664, and end up sending $16,606 or more than a third of 
their paychecks, directly to the Government.
  Families with children are now the lowest after-tax income group in 
America, below elderly households, below single persons, below families 
without children.
  As one person put it, those who say we do not need a tax cut, 
probably do not pay taxes.
  Mr. President, it has gotten so bad in my home State of Minnesota 
that it took until last Sunday, 134 days into 1995, for my constituents 
to finally reach Tax Freedom Day, the day when they're no longer 
working just to pay off taxes, and can finally begin working for 
themselves. Nearly 20 weeks, over 800 hours on the job just to pay 
Uncle Sam.
  I applaud the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee 
for his courageous work on the budget resolution, but I part ways with 
his blueprint when it comes to tax cuts. I say we had better find a way 
to help the Smiths, and the Johnsons, and the Joneses.
  The chairman states: ``Balance must first be achieved by reducing the 
rate of growth in Federal spending before tax reductions could be 
considered.''
  That is like holding the taxpayers' money hostage, like calling tax 
cuts a dessert that we will share with the American people only after 
they have cleaned their plates. Anyone who thinks tax relief should be 
saved for the dessert cart has not taken the pulse of the people 
lately.
  Middle-class American families are paying the vast majority of taxes 
in this country, and they are fed up. They are working longer hours, 
sometimes even taking on a second job, just to [[Page S6843]] meet 
their annual tax obligations while trying to maintain their style of 
living. They are still pursuing the American dream, but the ever-
increasing tax burden keeps pushing it out of reach.
  The $500 per-child tax credit takes money out of the hands of the 
Washington bureaucrats and leaves it in the hands of the taxpayers.
  It is truly a tax break for the middle class: nearly $9 out of every 
$10 of tax relief goes to families making $75,000 or less. They are the 
ones who need our help the most, and we cannot ask them to wait another 
6 or 7 years.
  Mr. President, I promised my constituents in Minnesota that tax 
relief will be my top priority in the Senate, and during the next week, 
I will do just that.
  The freshman class also promised American families that we would 
balance the budget. With or without a balanced budget amendment, we 
will deliver.
  Now, my good friend, the Budget Committee chairman, and his 
counterpart in the other Chamber, have crafted documents the naysayers 
said could never be achieved.
  The budget resolution we begin debating today, that brings the budget 
into balance by the year 2002, is proof that we are serious about 
living up to our pledge. Having to live within its means will be a new 
experience for a Congress that has only balanced its budget eight times 
in the past 64 years, and has not spent less than it has taken in since 
1969.
  Even the Clinton administration, despite all its rhetoric about 
shrinking the deficit, has seemingly washed its hands of the deficit 
problem.
  Under the President's own budget plan, the deficit would increase 
from $177 billion this year to $276 billion in 2002, and add another 
$1.5 trillion to the national debt. Only Republicans have offered an 
alternative to this fiscal madness. And I hope my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle will find the courage to vote for a balanced 
budget. We're offering a plan to balance the budget, and we have done 
it without slashing Federal spending, without putting children, 
seniors, and the disadvantaged at risk. Most of our savings are 
achieved by slowing the growth of Government. Will there need to be 
some sacrifices? Yes, although the Government will have to sacrifice 
more than the people will. Will belts need to be tightened? Yes. But if 
we do not tighten the belts today, they are destined to become nooses 
around the necks of the coming generations, who will someday become the 
innocent victims of our negligence. Mr. President, as Senate freshmen, 
my colleagues and I heard it over and over during our campaigns: the 
American people are willing to make those sacrifices, if they believe 
their Government is serious about making change.
  This Congress is serious.
  Finally, we promised that our budget will protect Medicare and Social 
Security. For the sake of America's senior citizens, we must protect, 
preserve, and improve Medicare, to make sure it is there for the next 
generation as well.
  The fact is, Medicare is in trouble, in large part due to fraud, 
waste, abuse, mismanagement and misuse. By 1997, Medicare will pay out 
$1 billion more in benefits than it collects in revenue, and 5 years 
later, it will go bankrupt.
  Again, in our budget plan, we are working to preserve, protect, and 
improve the Medicare System. In fact, Medicare will remain the fastest 
growing program in the Federal budget.
  Over the next 7 years, we will spend $1.7 trillion to keep Medicare a 
healthy and viable health care provider for this generation of senior 
citizens.
  Social Security must receive the same care, although as a self-funded 
entity it will be taken off budget and dealt with separately from other 
programs.
  Clearly, the Government must honor its contract with our senior 
citizens, and the budget that Congress produces this year must ensure 
that the Social Security Program will survive and be there for older 
Americans. The best way to achieve that is to bring the Federal budget 
into balance.
  A budget that works for America will meet the needs of all our 
citizens, working men and women and their children, senior citizens, 
and the disadvantaged, while providing middle-class tax relief, 
balancing the budget by the year 2002, and protecting Social Security 
and Medicare.
  Mr. President, that is what we promised the people, and our promises 
were not made lightly. I remember hearing about a commencement speech 
given by Winston Churchill toward the end of his life. He sat patiently 
through the introduction, rose, and went to the podium. All he said was 
``Never, never, never give up.'' Then he sat back down.
  Mr. President, this committed class of freshmen Senators has taken 
the pulse of the people, and we are not planning to give up on the 
ambitious agenda they sent us here to carry out.
  Like the latest chapter in the ``Die Hard'' movie trilogy, we will be 
here--with a vengeance--to remind our colleagues just what America's 
message last November was all about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, before addressing the matter that brings 
me to the floor, may I congratulate the Senator from Minnesota for the 
very forceful and, I hope, prophetic statement. The concerns that he 
has raised are real. They have been addressed without large consequence 
in this Chamber for some 15 years now, as I can attest. And I for one, 
and I think many others, welcome the energy and conviction, the 
commitment of the freshman class, as he chooses to describe it, that 
came to the Senate in January. I look forward to working with him in 
the years ahead--months ahead--weeks ahead, to be specific.
  (The remarks of Mr. Moynihan pertaining to the introduction of 
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, the Senator from North 
Dakota is recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Thank you very much. It is my intention to speak for a 
couple of minutes at the beginning and then to yield the remainder of 
the time to Senator Akaka from Hawaii.

                          ____________________