[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 87 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6187-S6191]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          ``ME, TOO'' POLITICS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we appreciate the opportunity to take some 
time this afternoon. This is a continuation of our effort among the 
freshmen to have a freshman focus and to bring what is often a unique 
perception of Senate Members, those of us who just came less than 2 
years ago, on the topics of today. So we appreciate that. Some of my 
colleagues will join in.
  Mr. President, we want to talk a little today about me, too politics. 
I think it is a timely topic. It is one that has been very prominent 
here in this body over the last several months or even, in fact, year.
  It sounds kind of good--me, too. It sound like that ought to give us 
an opportunity to agree. We will order something and there will be a 
resounding, me, too.
  Unfortunately, that is not the way it works. Unfortunately, me, too 
politics means when there is an idea that comes up, I say, me, too, and 
then find lots of reasons why you cannot do it, so that there is a very 
difficult problem in determining--walking one way and talking another, 
saying, ``I'm for it,'' but making sure that it never happens. That is 
what we increasingly are seeing with this administration, President 
Clinton, and with the minority here in the Senate.
  There are, of course, real choices to be made. There is nothing wrong 
with choices. That is what politics is about. It gives you and me, as 
voters, a chance to choose because various candidates are for various 
things. That is how the system works. When those choices are made 
indistinguishable, then it is very difficult. It is very difficult to 
have politicians who say one thing and do another, and continuously do 
that.
  So there are basic decisions that have to be made. Are we going to 
have more Government, more Federal Government or less? Are we going to 
move in the direction of having more taxes, or are we going to move in 
the direction of having American families spend more of their money 
themselves? Those are basic decisions. Are we going to spend more? Are 
we going to borrow to spend more so that the credit card can go to 
our kids, or are we going to reduce spending?

  These are tough decisions, but they are fairly clear decisions. What 
is happening is they are being blurred by this me, too politics. The 
technique, of course, is that whatever is suggested as fundamental 
change, then the others say, ``Well, I'm for that as well,'' and then 
go about making sure it never happens.
  The technique, of course, is to speak for it, and then decide, 
``Well, but it goes a little too far,'' or, ``There are some details 
here that we can't do. I want a balanced budget, but this isn't the 
right way.'' So it is a way of saying, ``I'm for it,'' but making sure 
you never have to vote for it.
  Mr. President, I think that is troublesome. I think that is 
troublesome in terms of the system. It is troublesome certainly in 
terms of elections where, at least in my view, the purpose of elections 
is to give some direction to our Government.
  We have to generally do it in fairly broad areas. Certainly no one 
talks about 800 different votes that you take in a year, but they do 
talk about your philosophy. Are you for less Government or for more? 
More spending or less? A balanced budget or not? Term limits or not?
  Unfortunately, the President has become a me, too President. There 
are countless examples of echoing the fundamental changes that have 
been brought about by the Republican Party, or by Bob Dole, almost like 
a shadow. Every time the Republicans come out with a plan to make 
fundamental change, to bring about the reforms that people have asked 
for, why, we see the President standing up and saying he agrees; but 
when the chips are down, he goes the other way. It is no longer ``Me, 
too.'' It is more like the old Frank Sinatra song, the old tune of ``My 
way.'' ``Do it my way.''
  So it is easy to say, ``Well, I'm for that, but, you know, it's not 
the right way to do it,'' or, ``I'm for that, but it goes too far,'' 
or, ``I'm for that, but there are the details.'' So it confuses where 
we really are.
  Balancing the budget and cutting taxes and reforming welfare, ending 
the days of big Government, why, the President continues to sound in 
tune with fundamental change, but when the reform comes around, then 
his position shifts and it does not happen. That has happened so many 
times this year.
  For example, he vetoed the balanced budget after saying he was for a 
balanced budget. After running on a balanced budget, after saying, we 
can do it in 5 years, in 8 years, in 10 years, in 7 years, he vetoes a 
balanced budget.
  He vetoed welfare reform after pledging to change welfare as we know 
it. He vetoed legislation that would have kept Medicare solvent for the 
next generation after promising to save the program. These are the 
issues that we are seeing too much of ``Me, too'' instead of reform.
  We need to really bear down on the idea of people saying one thing 
and doing another. I am pretty proud of this body and of the majority 
in this body who came here a year and a half ago and said we believe 
that voters want some fundamental change in terms of the direction of 
this country, a balanced budget being one of them.
  Of course, the idea of moving welfare and many of the programs closer 
to people by moving them to the States, these are fundamental changes 
that people talk about. We have done many of those things, but 
unfortunately, the ``Me, too'' politics has kept them from being 
completed. We have sent the first balanced budget in 25 years to the 
White House--the first time. Vetoed.

  So we need to really take a look at what we are for. If people 
disagree, if people want more government--and

[[Page S6188]]

there are those who do, a legitimate point of view. I do not happen to 
share it. But you can argue that, ``Yes, there are more things 
Government can do. Yes, we ought to take more money from folks because 
we can spend it better in the Government.'' That is a legitimate point 
of view; not one I share. But we at least ought to decide where we are 
on those things so that what we say and what we do are the same.
  Welfare reform is one that comes, of course, to mind. We provided the 
President an opportunity to reform the Nation's welfare system, not 
just once, but twice. On both occasions the President said no; first, 
as part of the Balanced Budget Act in November and then a bill that 
stood on its own in January.
  Just last month the President issued an Executive order requiring 
States to end welfare payments to teenaged parents who quit school or 
refuse to live with a responsible adult, language in part that was part 
of the proposal. Now the ``Me, too'' politics will say, ``Yeah, I'm for 
that. I agree with that. Look what I've done,'' which is about one-
hundredth of the total package. We see more and more of that.
  Another flip-flop occurred on, of course, announcing support for 
Wisconsin's historic welfare reform plan to put able-bodied recipients 
to work, something the Republican welfare program that was vetoed would 
have accomplished. Now the administration is backing off of that, flip-
flopping again, saying there are some details in the Wisconsin plan 
that need to be negotiated.
  Let me tell you, the people in Wisconsin have a better idea of what 
needs to be done to deliver services in their State than bureaucrats 
here do.
  I come from a State that is small. We need a different system than 
you need in a large State. The States are the only place to do that. So 
you cannot talk one way and walk another. Balancing the budget clearly 
has been the most significant issue over the last year and a half, not 
simply because of the numbers, not simply because of the arithmetic, 
but because the budget reflects the kind of approach we take to govern, 
whether we are fiscally responsible, whether we say, ``Yes, we will 
spend more than we take in,'' whether we say it is morally correct if 
you want services, those people who receive them ought to pay for them, 
rather than putting it on the credit card for the kids. Those are basic 
issues.

  We cannot balance the budget unless we are willing to adjust and make 
fundamental changes in Government. Budgets are vital to where we are 
going. The first 2\1/2\ years the administration never submitted a 
balanced budget to the Congress despite all of the talk, and opposed a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, arguing we do not need 
to do this. ``Just balance the budget,'' the same argument that has 
been going on 25 years right here in this place, and we have not 
balanced it. Of course we need the discipline of a constitutional 
amendment.
  Finally, under the pressure to produce a balanced budget, but not 
basically making the changes that have to be made to do it. You have to 
deal with entitlements. Two-thirds of the expenditures are in 
entitlements. If you do not deal with entitlements, several things 
happen. One is that you never balance the budget. The other is that 
programs we want to strengthen and save, like Medicare, cannot exist 
unless you make some fundamental changes in them.
  Tax cuts, promises to cut taxes--instead, what do we get? The largest 
tax increase in the history of this country. Last year, we came forward 
with plans to reduce taxes--vetoed, of course.
  Mr. President, I have great confidence in the American people. I have 
great confidence in voters that they will make decisions based on 
fundamental direction. I certainly hope so. That is our job as voters, 
to decide where we want to go and then, of course, have to decide who 
the candidates are that are going in the same direction we are, not 
that any party or any politician is going to represent every detail of 
our point of view, but in general this party, this party, this 
candidate or that candidate comes closer to representing my view than 
the other. That is the choice we have.
  Mr. President, I hope we all understand this business of ``Me, too, 
politics'' is not leadership. It is not decisiveness. It is a matter of 
avoiding taking strong positions. It is a matter of saying, ``Yes, this 
is a good idea. I am for it, I want to balance the budget, but I just 
cannot vote for it the way it is,'' and never will.
  I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. I see my associates 
have come forward. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator. On the issue of the President, 
which is a discussion that many of us are scratching our head about 
with respect to the rhetoric we are hearing from the White House on 
issues--very, very important issues--that face this country, where 
Republicans here in the Congress and in many places, on a bipartisan 
basis, are trying to move forward with programs we believe will move 
this country forward. We have been met with very stiff resistance from 
the White House.
  Yet when the campaign that has now commenced--the speeches; the 
President is out, making the campaign speeches--you would think from 
the speeches that he gives that all of the things that we are pursuing, 
that the American public is in general agreement with, like balancing 
the budget, like cutting taxes, like having smaller Government, like 
giving more power back to State and local governments, like welfare 
reform, all of those things that are very much supported by the 
American public and have been stopped, clearly been stopped by this 
White House, because we have passed all of those things, and they have 
been vetoed down at the Oval Office, the President is now campaigning 
in his speeches that he is for all of this. In fact, he is the one who 
is trying to make these things happen.

  It is particularly difficult for me, as someone who has worked 
extensively in the area of welfare reform, to hear the President of the 
United States not only giving speeches on the issue about how he is in 
support of the welfare system, but we have a President of the United 
States running ads on television talking about his welfare plan. Let me 
remind the President and my colleagues that the President of the United 
States has introduced one welfare reform proposal. It was introduced in 
June 1994, some 18 months into the President's term.
  As you may recall, in 1992 when he ran for election, he promised to 
end welfare as we know it and made it a centerpiece of the campaign--he 
was a new Democrat, someone who understood that big Government policies 
of the Great Society were, in fact, hurting the very people they 
intended to help, and that we had to do something different. We had to 
do something dramatically different. As a Governor from Arkansas, he 
saw the need for decentralizing welfare back to the States, into the 
communities, where antipoverty programs have been more effective and 
more tailored to the needs of the people in those communities.
  So he said he wanted to end welfare as we know it. I think that was a 
very significant component of putting together the Clinton majority 
that earned him the electoral votes necessary to win the Presidency. 
Mr. President, 18 months later, he introduced in that interim period of 
time massive health reform, tax increases, further spending increases, 
new entitlement programs, a whole lot of other things were introduced 
in the first 18 months. He tried to do the gays in the military and 
other things that were obviously higher in priority because they 
certainly came before any initiative on welfare. He took no initiative.
  The 103d Congress, from 1993 and 1994, introduced no legislation, the 
Democratic majority in both Houses introduced no legislation to move 
the welfare debate forward. In June 1994, it was introduced. It was a 
pathetic bill by everyone's estimate. It was panned by both sides as 
being no significant reform at all. In fact, they had trouble finding 
Democratic cosponsors of the bill. Someone even introduced the 
legislation for the President because it was considered such a minimal, 
incremental, insignificant reform of a system that was in terrible need 
of reform.
  This is the plan--I assume this is the plan--that the President now 
is going around the country suggesting ends to welfare as we know it. 
No one from the left or the right, whether you are for

[[Page S6189]]

welfare as it is or would like to see substantial changes, would 
indicate that the President's plan of 1994 ended welfare as we know it. 
Yet, we have the President of the United States out on television, out 
in speeches, suggesting that he is trying to end welfare as we know it.
  He had an opportunity to end welfare as we know it. Last year, we 
worked on a bipartisan basis here in the U.S. Senate and passed, I 
think, a very strong bill, one that attacked the significant problems 
in the welfare system, began to attack them. I do not see this as the 
final solution, by any stretch. But, in fact, it began to take us into 
a new course, where we focus more on allowing individual communities 
and States to fashion their own welfare programs with more flexibility. 
We put some work requirements in there, because we believe that is 
absolutely essential to transition people off of welfare. If you are 
going to transition people off of welfare, you have to give them work 
experience and teach them the skills necessary to work, and you have to 
put in time limits. If you do not put time limits in, you have a system 
that perpetuates nonwork, perpetuates a whole lot of values which I do 
not believe make for successful Americans.

  We worked together on a bipartisan basis here in the Senate and came 
up with a bill that got 87 votes on the floor of the U.S. Senate--87 
out of 99 votes; there were 12 who voted against it. That is an 
enormous bipartisan effort. In a year or two, now, where you have seen 
claims and disgust from the public about the intense partisanship, 
about the serious issues that face the country, here in the U.S. 
Senate, the issue that I think is one of the most pressing and 
important issues to this country and to our culture, to helping those 
who are in need, we were able to get 87 votes for a bipartisan bill.
  The President of the United States, who originally said, ``This is a 
great bill and I like it,'' as time went by, as we were working on this 
bill in conference, the President said he would veto, in fact, the 
Senate bill, that he would not support the Senate bill, even though it 
got 87 votes here in the U.S. Senate. So the President again very 
clearly signaled to the other side that he was not for anything that 
looked like the Senate bill or certainly not the House bill, and sent 
the signal to block whatever came out of conference as unacceptable 
welfare reform, even though there were 87 votes here.
  Now, this is the President who is running ads saying he wants to end 
welfare as we know it, having torpedoed a bill that got 87 votes here 
in the U.S. Senate, having not offered any substantive proposal in this 
session of Congress, having offered a weak proposal in 1994 that, 
again, was panned by both left and right as insignificant.
  This is the President who now wants you to believe that he is for us; 
he is for the same things that we are for and that you are for in 
welfare reform. The fact is on this ``me, too'' he is not ``me.'' He is 
not ``us.'' He is ``them.'' He is the status quo. He is for 
perpetuating a system that while well meaning in its inception--and 
certainly the people who put these programs together did not put these 
programs together because they thought they were going to hurt the 
poor, or because they thought they were going to hurt the children, or 
they thought were going to destroy communities, or thought they were 
going to create a culture of despair, or thought that they were going 
to really begin to tear apart families, or thought they were going to 
see fathers becoming less and less responsible for their children. None 
of those things were intended consequences of the Great Society 
programs and the other welfare programs we passed. But they surely have 
contributed to all of those things.
  What we are saying is that it is time to do things differently that 
we know work in rebuilding those institutions. The institutions of 
family, of parental responsibility to children, of community 
organization that builds values in the communities like churches and 
nonprofit organizations, and civic associations that build a sense of 
community and set standards and values for this community so people can 
relate to--in fact, not only do they relate to but they participate in 
establishing.
  We believe that sending welfare back down is not just substituting a 
State bureaucrat for a Federal bureaucrat, but substituting the 
neighbor down the street who works at the local community center, or 
the pastor of the church, or the social worker at the nonprofit mission 
helping the poor. That is what we are talking about in the welfare 
reform that is envisioned in the bills. I am hopeful that we can see 
that kind of progress in this area.
  I am also hopeful that the President will own up to the fact that he 
is not for welfare reform as that envisioned that I have just given 
you. That is not his vision of welfare reform. His vision of welfare 
reform is ensuring Federal control over these programs, guaranteeing 
that you will hear very much, ``Well the Republican plan didn't 
guarantee this; it cannot guarantee that.'' I can tell you what all of 
these Federal guarantees have gotten us over the past 30 years: 
Guaranteed failure, Federal guarantees failures of families and 
communities and culture. We want to get rid of the Federal guarantees. 
Yes, because we believe it is much more important that instead of 
having the bureaucrat guarantee that someone gets a check passed out by 
someone who sits behind bulletproof glass and you receive the check 
because the number that you have on your card is the number that 
matches that computer. Who you are does not matter. What your concerns 
are, does not matter. What your needs are, does not matter. You are a 
number in a computer and you get processed like it. That is not the 
kind of guarantee that I think the poor want in this country. What they 
want is the guarantee that someone loves them, cares for them, who sees 
them as a neighbor, who sees them as part of what they are in a 
community, and has the resources available to them to help them. That 
is the guarantee that we want to provide. That is the kind of program 
envisioned that we see for helping the poor in this country, and it is 
not about the Federal Government taking care of people. It is about 
neighbors taking care of each other which is about the goodness of 
America and the culture that we so much want to rebuild in this 
country.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I just wanted to add a few words to what my colleagues have been 
talking about here this afternoon--about leadership that I believe the 
American people have been calling for, leadership in areas such as a 
balanced budget, leadership of Federal spending reforming our welfare 
system, and, yet, leadership in providing tax relief to America's hard 
working families. That is what people think about leadership on these 
type of issues. They usually first think of the President because he 
naturally, after all, is our chief executive officer of the country; 
the person who delivers the State of the Union Address every year; the 
one required by law to begin the budget process by submitting that 
proposal to Congress. The President is elected to lead. But that is not 
what President Clinton has done over the last 3\1/2\ years. Instead of 
leading the Nation he has been more of one that is following in the 
footsteps of Congress. Whatever we do the President now especially in 
this campaign year is saying ``me, too'' as we have noted in other 
things. But his proposals in comparison with ours are really just pale 
examples of what needs to be done.
  We talk about welfare reform. He says ``me, too.'' But he does not 
provide adequate reform that we need to save and provide for that 
system of Medicare. We say we need to save Medicare. He says ``me, 
too'' but does not provide the basic reform and changes in the Medicare 
system to ensure that it is going to be here for the seniors who rely 
on it today and for the generations to come.
  Few issues symbolize the me-too response better than what has 
happened to tax relief. This President in 1992 as candidate Bill 
Clinton for President campaigned on the issue of tax relief for 
American families. In fact, then even called for tax relief as high as 
$1,000 per child tax credit. He said American families need tax relief. 
But what did the President do after the election? Did he come to 
Congress? Did he come with a budget that said, ``Now I am going to do 
what I promised to do, and that is to provide tax relief in some form 
to America's families?'' No.

[[Page S6190]]

 He did not. In fact, in 1993 the President proposed and this Congress 
passed--again without one Republican vote because we did not want to 
add to the tax burden of the American families--a $265 billion tax 
increase; not tax relief for families, but tax increases. Of course, we 
are going to hear the rhetoric all the time that it was targeted for 
the rich so they can pay their fair share. If that is true, why is the 
average tax burden on Americans today at all levels higher than it was 
just 3 years ago? Why is tax freedom day now on May 7 and not May 1 as 
it was 3 years ago? It is because the average American in this country 
is paying more taxes today than at any time in history.
  Our tax levels are higher today than at any time in history for 
average Americans--not just for a few but for all Americans. This flies 
in the face of what President Clinton said just 3\1/2\ years ago in 
1992 that he was going to provide tax relief.
  In 1993 while a Member of the House I introduced a budget called 
families first, and among the budget proposals included was tax relief, 
and specifically $500 per child in that tax relief package, half of 
what the President had talked about but as much as we can get a 
consensus on. We thought that was important. But when it reached the 
White House as part of our budget plan last year what did the President 
do? The President vetoed that. The President did not carry through on 
his promise of providing tax relief as I said, in fact he added more 
taxes to the average American family's debt.

  In doing so, I was hoping that we could win the President back over 
by providing for and including this tax cut in our budget. For nearly 3 
years we have been fighting that. As I said, the President has vetoed 
every attempt that we have made.
  So the President keeps saying--and we will hear it on the floor here 
as well, again as I mentioned--that this is just tax relief for the 
rich. I do not know where that comes from. When average American 
families in this country--in my State of Minnesota alone $500 million a 
year for average families could stay in their pockets rather than being 
sent to Washington. You will hear a lot of those--``Well, Washington 
speaks, and we can't afford here in Washington to give this type of tax 
relief.'' Well, the question is: Whose money is it? It is not 
Washington being able to afford to give tax relief. The question should 
be: Should American families be able to keep more of the money that 
they worked hard for every day? How much can we allow them to keep? 
That should be the question rather than saying, ``How much is this 
going to cost Washington?''
  The President though in his me-too efforts says, ``Well, I do want to 
give tax relief now.'' This is an election year. But now he is saying 
in his latest budget, ``Yes. I want to give tax relief. Me, too. I want 
to give a family tax credit, $500 per child. Me, too.'' But what is the 
President's proposal? It is not $500, and it is not for all children. 
It starts out as a $300 tax break for children, and it is phased in 
over 5 years. But at the end of 5 years it dies again. So he gives it 
and takes it away.
  Is it for all children? No. It is for children up to the age of and 
including the age of 12. So it is not for the same type of a tax relief 
that we have offered across the board of $500 per child tax credit.
  So, in other words, when it comes to $500 and the tax credit, the 
President has said ``me, too'' but only for a few years, not for 
children over the age of 13, and I guess not for real.
  So today, still 4 years after that promise was made, 3 years after we 
began the fight of offering tax credit and tax relief for American 
families, taxpayers still find themselves now caught between the 
rhetoric and reality. We have tried. We have included tax relief in our 
budgets. The President has vetoed it.
  So when Bill Clinton took office in 1993 we said then the taxes were 
too high, we believed Government was too big, and that spending was out 
of control. Nearly 3\1/2\ half years into the Clinton Presidency, and 
despite all the efforts that we have made, taxes are still higher than 
they were 3 years ago, Government is bigger than it was 3 years ago, 
and spending. Well, I think you get the message. Spending has increased 
over the last 3 years.
  The bottom line is this cannot continue. We cannot give up on our 
efforts to return to the American people their hard-earned tax dollars. 
If the President is not willing to exercise the responsibilities of 
leadership handed to him by the voters, then we must. We are going to 
continue our efforts when it comes to carrying out the taxpayers' 
agenda. Their demand for a balanced budget, less Government spending, 
and tax relief is what we are going to continue to work for. We cannot 
afford to simply sit back and say, ``Me, too,'' like the President has 
done. We have to say we can and we will do this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to continue this same theme of 
discussing ideas that have been put forth by Republicans in the 
Congress and which the President has claimed he also supports, though 
in some cases the record would suggest otherwise.
  Former Congressman and HUD Secretary Jack Kemp has said something 
that I always thought was very wise. He said that campaigns are not so 
much about defeating an opponent as they are about providing leadership 
and new ideas.
  The Republican Congress, particularly under the leadership of then 
Majority Leader Bob Dole and Speaker Newt Gingrich, have provided the 
leadership and the new ideas that have animated the agenda here in 
Washington for the last year and a half. It began with the Contract 
With America, and it followed through with many of the ideas that have 
just been discussed by the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator 
from Minnesota.
  One of those was the idea of tax cuts that the Senator from Minnesota 
was just talking about. These were proposed, of course, by Republicans. 
The President said, ``Me, too, but not as much.''
  With regard to welfare reform, the Senator from Pennsylvania talked 
about that. I remember when President Clinton said, ``Me, too'' on 
that, and tried to steal the thunder, apparently, from Majority Leader 
Bob Dole, who was prepared to talk about welfare reform, when President 
Clinton said, ``I like that Wisconsin State plan. That is the kind of 
real welfare reform we need,'' in a Saturday morning radio address. 
Then, when it came time for following through and signing the waiver 
that would allow Wisconsin to follow through with its welfare reform, 
the White House said, ``Well, we are not quite ready to do that, yet. 
We want to think about it a while.'' So one is not even certain 
whether, when the President says, ``Me, too,'' he really means it.
  In any event, taxes and welfare have been discussed. Let me mention 
quickly three other subjects that fall into the same category. One is 
the subject of defense and, in particular, ballistic missile defense. 
This is something that has concerned Republicans in the Congress, and 
some Democrats, for a long time. It was a particular challenge when, 
during the cold war, the Soviet Union had the capability of raining on 
the United States the ultimate in weapons of mass destruction, the 
ability to destroy, literally, the United States and, if we retaliated, 
eventually the world.
  President Reagan decided that the best way to deal with this was 
through the development of a defense, so that no longer would the world 
be threatened with annihilation as a result of two superpowers killing 
each other and every other living thing on the face of the Earth; that 
we would provide a defense for ourselves so no nation would want to 
attack us because they would know they could not succeed and they would 
simply be wasting their money to try.

  That work on star wars, as opponents called it--it was really called 
the Strategic Defense Initiative [SDI]--is credited by many Russians as 
being one of the things which finally caused the Soviet Union to throw 
in the towel in the cold war, to acknowledge they could never compete 
with us, not only economically but also militarily in these 
sophisticated high-tech areas, and, therefore, they may as well decide 
to be our friend rather than our enemy.
  Today's ballistic missile threat is a little different. It does not 
come from a country like Russia. It comes from a lot of so-called rogue 
nations around

[[Page S6191]]

the world who are acquiring the technology to deliver weapons of mass 
destruction by ballistic missiles, perhaps a little shorter range than 
the Russian missiles, but still with the capacity to rain harm on their 
neighbors, on neighboring states, on the capitals of our allies, 
capital cities, on troops deployed abroad.
  The administration said, ``We are for that, too. But we do not really 
want to spend as much money as it would take to develop the systems, at 
least as soon as you would like to see them developed.'' So it has been 
distressing to those of us who tried to support these programs to see 
the administration delay them and delay them and delay them, while all 
the time suggesting that nevertheless they do support them. 
Specifically, I have in mind two very important theater ballistic 
missile programs, the so-called THAAD Program and the Navy Upper Tier 
Program.
  Both of these are designed to, when they are deployed, intercept 
missiles that would be delivered by an enemy in some theater around the 
world. One reason for the Navy program is that you could send the Aegis 
cruisers all over the world, literally, and defend against such a 
situation. For example, if the North Koreans decided to launch one of 
their new missiles against Japan or against South Korea, or even, as 
they will have the capability of doing after the turn of the century, 
against the United States--say Alaska or Hawaii--positioning those 
Aegis cruisers somewhere in the western Pacific would permit us to 
intercept such a missile.
  The administration, however, has refused to comply with the law of 
the land in spending the money necessary to develop those programs 
within the timeframe called for by the legislation that was adopted by 
the Congress and signed by the President last year. Therefore, it is 
another example of an idea where the President has said, ``I am for 
that, too,'' but he is not willing to back up the words with actions.
  Quickly, Mr. President, two other examples I wanted to mention. One 
is one where I really hope we can have a bipartisan effort, because 
this should know no partisanship. It deals with the question of 
victims' rights. People who have been victimized by violent crime ought 
to have some constitutional rights in our criminal justice system. I 
say criminal justice system because that is what it has come to be 
called. But in a perverse way, it also expresses what has really 
happened to our system, where justice is provided to criminals--and we 
would have it no other way--but it is not provided to the victims of 
crime. We need to right that imbalance right now.
  Our society believes in the rights of innocent people so strongly 
that we even say we would rather have nine guilty people go free than 
have one innocent person convicted of a crime. So we protect the rights 
of defendants, people who are accused of crimes. But we do not provide 
similar protections to those people who are innocent and have already 
been victimized. Senator Feinstein, a Democrat, and myself have 
introduced a constitutional amendment to protect victims of crime. We 
hope this will be a bipartisan effort.
  Recently, we find that sounds coming from the White House suggest, 
again, the President is for this. I am hoping this time he will not 
only be for it in his expressions, but that he will support us in our 
effort to get this constitutional amendment adopted. The former 
majority leader, Bob Dole, is a cosponsor of our legislation. I would 
be very, very pleased if President Bill Clinton would join with us in 
supporting this constitutional amendment so Republicans and Democrats 
alike could provide real protection for the victims of crime. This 
should be a real test for the President. Will he not just say, ``Me, 
too,'' but come aboard and achieve the goal.
  Finally, I just wanted to mention the fifth item, and that is the 
balanced budget. The President has been very, very willing to say he, 
too, is for a balanced budget. The problem is that every effort that we 
have undertaken to try to achieve that balanced budget he has thwarted.
  We tried to do it first through a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution, because we knew it would be difficult to get the Congress 
to actually pass a balanced budget. He lobbied several Senators on the 
Democratic side who had previously supported the balanced budget 
amendment, urged them to oppose it, and it failed by one vote, as we 
all know. So we did not get a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution, even though the President said he was for a balanced 
budget.
  He said that ought to be the job of the House and Senate, so we took 
him up on his word. On November 17 of last year, the Senate of the 
United States passed a balanced budget, the first one in 20-some years, 
I think it is 28 years. The House did the same thing. We sent that 
balanced budget to the President. On December 6 last year, he vetoed 
it.
  He is for a balanced budget, but when it came time to actually sign 
it, he was not ready to do that. So, once again, we have an example--
this is the fifth one, as I said--where the President is very quick to 
say, ``Me, too,'' but when it comes time to follow through, he is not 
there.
  I will return to the beginning of my remarks. As Jack Kemp said, 
campaigns are about providing leadership and new ideas. The Republicans 
have provided this leadership. We have provided the new ideas. We have 
really won this campaign of ideas because it seems to me that the 
President and many of our Democratic friends are now agreeing with us 
that welfare reform, Medicaid reform, tax relief for American families, 
a strong national defense, a balanced budget, regulatory reform--which 
I have not even talked about--all of these things are good ideas and 
they should be implemented.
  The President says, ``I agree.'' The problem is that we cannot get 
him to follow through with this. That is what this next election 
probably is going to be all about. Will we follow our leadership? Do 
you agree with our ideas? If you do, Mr. President, what we will be 
saying is elect the kind of people who will follow through on those 
ideas. If you do not agree with those ideas, of course, then you are 
going to want to support someone else. But I think politics is about 
providing leadership and new ideas. These are the right ideas, and it 
is time for us to get support, not just in the House and in the Senate 
of the United States, but from the President of the United States.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________