Phil Gramm

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. How much time is there remaining?

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, in offering a tribute to our late colleague, Congressman Frank Tejeda. Frank will be remembered as a man who dedicated his life to serving America. He was widely admired for his friendly common sense, but in particular for the special place that he kept in his heart for the men and women who wear the uniform of our country. In his short tenure, Frank Tejeda left his mark on our country, on the people of Texas, and most personally on the people of San Antonio, who knew him best. It is most fitting that we designate the Post Office facility to be constructed in San Antonio as the ``Frank M. Tejeda post office Building,'' not to remind people of who Frank was, for they do not need to be reminded. We designate the facility in Frank's name to recall for future generations that a man, whose life was too short, made a difference and will live in our hearts. The Frank M. Tejeda Building will stand as a monument for dedication, commitment, and for the precept that with God-given talents and the will to work, we can do anything we set out to do in America. Frank Tejeda epitomized those qualities in his life and we honor him.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. How much time do I have left?

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to make a very, very simple point, and I think I can do it in 6 minutes. If not, I will come back this afternoon. First of all, everybody knows what is happening to the national debt. It is exploding under both Democrats and Republicans. Nobody tries to argue otherwise. They suggest that we wait until another day to deal with it. But nobody can refute the fact that debt is going up. Now, the second thing that we have seen throughout this whole debate is that we have had an effort by our Democratic colleagues to exempt the budget from the balanced budget requirement. In fact, if you add up every amendment that has been offered by our Democratic colleagues to the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, they have now proposed, in terms of amendments offered and submitted on the floor and dealt with in committee, to exempt Social Security, college education, veterans, education, nutrition, health, housing, justice, capital projects, and emergencies, which is 77 percent of the domestic budget, if we are going to require a balanced budget. I want to talk about the exemption that is before the Senate now. That is exempting Social Security. Now, it is interesting that our colleagues say that if you want to protect Social Security, don't balance the budget. Well, let me first note that it is interesting because in committee, the Democrats propose that we count the Social Security surplus for the next 5 years and, then, thereafter, we exempt Social Security from the budget. Now, I have a chart here that shows what is happening to Social Security. What it shows, very briefly, is that for the next 20 years, it has a modest surplus, and then when baby boomers turn 65 and retire, it falls off the end of the Earth. Now, it is interesting to note that our Democratic colleagues say, while you have this surplus, let's count that for 5 years to try to balance the budget, but don't count any of this deficit. I ask you, how can you balance the budget and not count the largest program of the Federal budget, which is Social Security? How can it be anything but a fraud to talk about balancing the budget and exempt the largest program in the budget? But there is a more important point I want to make, and that point has to do with the ability to fund Social Security. If you get to the heart of this amendment, what our Democratic colleagues are saying is, if you don't balance the budget, you are in a stronger position to fund Social Security. Let me look at this very briefly. We last balanced the budget in 1969--28 years ago. The last day we had a balanced budget, the Federal debt was $366 billion. Today, the debt is $5.2 trillion, which is the gross level of Federal debt. We cheat a little sometimes by talking about debt held externally as if we don't have a debt to the Social Security trust fund. What has happened since the last day we had a balanced budget is the Federal debt has risen by $4.8 trillion. Since the last day we had a balanced budget, we have indebted every child in America to a debt, at birth, of $20,000. Every baby born in America, every day since 1969, is $20,000 more in debt than they were the last day we balanced the Federal budget. The interest on the debt that we have incurred since 1969 is $320 billion a year, to date. The interest we are paying on the debt we have incurred since the last day we balanced the Federal budget is $320 billion a year. The Social Security benefits to the elderly are only $304 billion a year. So, by the deficits we have run every day since 1969, we have piled up an interest payment, per year, that is bigger than what we are spending on Social Security benefits for the retired every year. Now, does anybody believe that, by incurring $4.8 trillion of debt since the last day we balanced the budget, Social Security is more secure today than it was in 1969? Does anybody believe that, because we are paying $320 billion of interest on the debt that we have incurred since the last day we balanced the budget, Social Security is more secure because we are piling up this debt? A baby born in America, if spending continues at the current rate, will, in their working lifetime, if they are born today, pay $187,000 of income taxes in their working lifetime just to pay interest on the public debt. Are they going to be in a better position to provide Social Security benefits for their parents by paying $187,000 in their lifetime on interest? Would they be in a stronger position to provide Social Security if they weren't paying that interest? I think the answer is, clearly, yes. To end with a simple analogy with what our Democratic colleagues are saying, which could be converted into advice to a family, say that you have a family and they have one child 3 years old. They have one 2 years old. They have one which is 1 year old. They have three children. Our Democratic colleagues are giving them advice about funding the college education of their children. Our Democratic colleagues say, ``Look. Don't balance your budget. If you balance your budget, you may not be able to send your children to college.'' Does anybody believe, if for the next 17 years they run up big debts, that they are going to be in a better position to send those children to college than they would be if they were saving the money now to do it? If you care about your momma, if you care about Social Security, and if you want to balance the Federal budget to stop this debt and this interest from eating up every penny you earn, only then can Social Security be saved. That is why this amendment, if adopted, would be a nail in the coffin of Social Security. If you want to save Social Security, stop the growth in the debt. Stop the growth in interest payments. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today Senator Hutchison and I are introducing a bill to permanently extend the research and development tax credit. The R&D tax credit was originally enacted as a part of President Reagan's Economic Recovery and Tax Act of 1981 in order to encourage greater private sector investment in research and development. Since its creation, the credit has been extended seven times, and it is currently set to expire on May 31, 1997. Since its enactment in 1981, the benefits of the R&D credit have been enormous. Studies show that in the short run, every dollar of the R&D credit stimulates a dollar of additional private R&D spending, and in the long run, each dollar of the credit yields up to $2 in additional private R&D spending. Furthermore, the rate of return from R&D spending to society as a whole is estimated to be as high as 60 percent. Given these facts, we can easily expect that the benefits of the credit will only be enhanced if it is extended permanently. A permanent extension of the R&D credit would encourage companies to take on additional research and development projects by allowing them to be certain that the credit will be in effect during these long-run initiatives. In fact, the ratio of R&D spending to output rose over 40 percent in the 1980's when the R&D credit was in effect for the longest period of time. The R&D credit is an effective and proven incentive for companies to increase investment in U.S.-based research and development. The continued existence of the R&D credit is particularly important given the substantial tax incentives provided by many of our international competitors to their domestic R&D industries. The jobs created by R&D expenditures are exactly the kind of jobs we all claim to vote. In my home State of Texas alone, the average high-technology job pays $47,019 a year--almost $20,000 more per year than the average private sector salary of $27,147. The need to make the credit permanent is only further highlighted by the fact that in 1996, for the first time in its history, the R&D credit was allowed to lapse--there was a gap in the law between July 1, 1995, through July 1, 1996. Haphazard and unpredictable temporary extensions of the credit, combined with this recent lapse, have set a negative precedent for the research community. Businesses cannot and do not ignore the possibility of future gaps in the R&D credit, and will be understandably driven to scale back new long-term projects if they cannot be certain that the credit will continue. We should permanently extend the R&D tax credit to finally remove this unnecessary barrier to long-term research and development which has been created by the stop-and-go extension process. Finally, Mr. President, I want to point out that the R&D credit has a long history of bipartisan support. The President has signaled his support for the credit, not only by signing last year's extension as a part of the Small Business Job Protection Act, but also by proposing a further extension as a part of his fiscal year 1998 budget. Unfortunately, his proposal follows the ill-advised precedent of merely temporarily extending the credit. I believe that this credit must be made permanent, and I am proud to have joined 17 members of the Texas delegation in a letter to Chairman Archer and Chairman Roth calling for a permanent extension of the R&D tax credit. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this letter and the text of the bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The time has come for us to demonstrate our long-term commitment to research and development, and I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hutchison in sponsoring this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today Senator Hutchison and I are introducing a bill to permanently extend the research and development tax credit. The R&D tax credit was originally enacted as a part of President Reagan's Economic Recovery and Tax Act of 1981 in order to encourage greater private sector investment in research and development. Since its creation, the credit has been extended seven times, and it is currently set to expire on May 31, 1997. Since its enactment in 1981, the benefits of the R&D credit have been enormous. Studies show that in the short run, every dollar of the R&D credit stimulates a dollar of additional private R&D spending, and in the long run, each dollar of the credit yields up to $2 in additional private R&D spending. Furthermore, the rate of return from R&D spending to society as a whole is estimated to be as high as 60 percent. Given these facts, we can easily expect that the benefits of the credit will only be enhanced if it is extended permanently. A permanent extension of the R&D credit would encourage companies to take on additional research and development projects by allowing them to be certain that the credit will be in effect during these long-run initiatives. In fact, the ratio of R&D spending to output rose over 40 percent in the 1980's when the R&D credit was in effect for the longest period of time. The R&D credit is an effective and proven incentive for companies to increase investment in U.S.-based research and development. The continued existence of the R&D credit is particularly important given the substantial tax incentives provided by many of our international competitors to their domestic R&D industries. The jobs created by R&D expenditures are exactly the kind of jobs we all claim to vote. In my home State of Texas alone, the average high-technology job pays $47,019 a year--almost $20,000 more per year than the average private sector salary of $27,147. The need to make the credit permanent is only further highlighted by the fact that in 1996, for the first time in its history, the R&D credit was allowed to lapse--there was a gap in the law between July 1, 1995, through July 1, 1996. Haphazard and unpredictable temporary extensions of the credit, combined with this recent lapse, have set a negative precedent for the research community. Businesses cannot and do not ignore the possibility of future gaps in the R&D credit, and will be understandably driven to scale back new long-term projects if they cannot be certain that the credit will continue. We should permanently extend the R&D tax credit to finally remove this unnecessary barrier to long-term research and development which has been created by the stop-and-go extension process. Finally, Mr. President, I want to point out that the R&D credit has a long history of bipartisan support. The President has signaled his support for the credit, not only by signing last year's extension as a part of the Small Business Job Protection Act, but also by proposing a further extension as a part of his fiscal year 1998 budget. Unfortunately, his proposal follows the ill-advised precedent of merely temporarily extending the credit. I believe that this credit must be made permanent, and I am proud to have joined 17 members of the Texas delegation in a letter to Chairman Archer and Chairman Roth calling for a permanent extension of the R&D tax credit. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this letter and the text of the bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The time has come for us to demonstrate our long-term commitment to research and development, and I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hutchison in sponsoring this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have seen the specter this week of our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle proposing to exempt additional programs from the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution: Social Security, emergency spending, veterans programs, housing programs, education, health and welfare programs, college aid and training programs, law enforcement programs, the Tennessee Valley Authority, highways, bridges, dams, roads, buildings, and it goes on and on. Given how far afield we have gone in this debate, I wanted to very briefly try to remind the Senate and those who are following this debate what this debate is about. This debate is about families making hard decisions at their kitchen table, trying to make ends meet. So I thought I would look today, at 28 years ago, the last year that we had a balanced budget in America. The last time we had a balanced budget was in 1969. If you look at the front page of the Washington Post for Thursday, February 13, 1969, you can see that not very much happened in the world 28 years ago today when we had a balanced budget. But there was some very exciting news that day. The very exciting news was not on the front page; the very exciting news was in the want ads. I would like just to review what America looked like the last time we had a balanced budget. Dale City is a city 25 miles south of Washington. It is sort of a middle-class neighborhood. In Dale City, 28 years ago today, when we had a balanced budget, they were advertising new homes that were selling between $18,600 and $38,000 apiece. In the richest county in America, Montgomery County, 28 years ago, when we had our last balanced budget, they were advertising new homes in Walnut Hill for $32,500. And 28 years of deficit spending later, they are still running want ads. They ran them today. The want ads today show that houses in the suburbs of Northern Virginia are selling between $230,000 and $340,000 apiece, and in Montgomery County they are selling for $270,000 a piece. The newspaper of 28 years ago today did not have any news on the front page worthy of being remembered, but it had want ads worthy of being remembered. A Chevrolet Impala could be bought for $51 a month, and you had it paid off in 3 years. That was 28 years ago today, the last time we had a balanced budget. Today, to buy a Chevrolet Cavalier, it costs you $194 a month, and you have to pay for 6 years to pay it off. There was not much exciting news on the front page of the paper 28 years ago today, when we had a balanced budget, but there was exciting news in the want ads. You could buy a new Goodyear tire for $8.75 apiece. Now, in fact, there is an ad today for $24.99. But my guess is, 28 years ago and today, if you went out to get the $8 tires then or the $24 tires today, you would find that they did not fit your car. But look at what has happened to the base tire in terms of expenses. Twenty-eight years ago today, the public was buying pork. And our Government was beginning to go on a binge of pork that would last 28 years. Pork chops at Giant 28 years ago today were 89 cents a pound. Pork chops at A&P 28 years ago today, as advertised in the Post, were 89 cents a pound. Pork chops at Safeway 28 years ago today, when we had a balanced budget, were 89 cents a pound. Today, in the Washington Post, Safeway boneless pork chops are $3.99 a pound. Mr. President, 28 years ago there was not a big headline in the paper, but there should have been. The big headline in the paper should have been, ``Budget Balanced This Year for the Last Year in 28 Years.'' Our colleagues say: Well, things are going great. It's wonderful. We ought to exempt the budget from itself. There's no reason to quit spending. But I think anybody who looks at what was in the paper 28 years ago today and what is in the paper today has to conclude that there have been a lot of changes in the 28 years since we have had a balanced budget and that many of those changes are not trends that we want to continue. Finally, tomorrow is Valentine's Day. Twenty-eight years ago today you could buy this Whitman deluxe red foil heart assortment, 1 pound of candy, for $2.66. After 28 years of deficit spending here in Washington, it costs $8.79. Mr. President, maybe some of our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle could say: Well, don't worry about housing costs up from $18,000 to $230,000 and don't worry about automobile costs up from a monthly payment of $51 to a monthly payment of $248. Maybe they could say: Don't worry about the price of tires and don't worry about pork. But when the cost of love is exploding, the time has come to stop deficit spending. That is what this debate is about. I wanted to remind my colleagues before we all left for our work period at home. This organization is permanently charged with ensuring compliance with the convention's requirements and with monitoring the chemical industry and the chemical production throughout the world. The convention's preparatory commission, which is located in The Hague, is currently determining precisely how the permanent organization is going to be structured and how the convention is going to be implemented. Every State that ratifies that convention has to complete the destruction of chemical weapons agents, munitions and production facilities within 10 years of the convention's entry into force, or its date of ratification, whichever comes earlier. I would like to describe what the treaty accomplishes in terms of control of chemicals and their precursors and monitoring and tracking of those chemicals and precursors. The convention establishes three lists, or schedules as they are called, of chemical warfare agents and their precursor chemicals. These are arranged in the order of their importance to chemical weapons production and the extent of their legitimate peaceful or commercial uses. The OPCW Technical Secretariat will update those schedules as needed and as circumstances change. And the production, the use, or the transfer of any chemicals on these schedules above set minimal amounts must be projected prospectively by the manufacturers and subsequently reported annually to the OPCW. Any facility that makes use of or is capable of producing scheduled chemicals has to register with the OPCW, as do facilities that produce over 30 metric tons annually of a discrete chemical containing phosphorous, sulphur, or fluorine. So, Mr. President, what we gain here is a mechanism for knowing globally who produces what chemicals, how much they produce, and where these chemicals are going. The inspections of chemical facilities provided by the convention will vary according to the nature of the chemicals. Those declared as producing, storing, or destroying chemical weapons are subject to systematic on-site inspection and continuous instrument monitoring. Those chemical facilities declared as nonchemical weapons facilities are subject to routine or random inspections, depending on the schedule or schedules on which the chemicals they produce or handle are listed. All other facilities that produce or handle or are suspected of producing or handling chemicals are subject to on-site challenge inspections upon the request of a signatory nation. So, I reiterate, under the terms of the convention we will achieve for the first time the ability to know who is producing what chemicals, how much they produce, and where these chemicals are moving, and we obtain the ability to inspect any of those chemical production or handling entities.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the issue which is before us, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. But I don't think today we can talk about this babble about putting the Federal Government on a budget like everybody else, except in the context of the latest edition to this big stack of budgets over here which have failed America and failed the working people of our country and piled hundreds of billions of dollars of debt on generations yet unborn, without looking at the newest installment of this debate; that is, the budget that the President has sent to us this morning. I want to make it clear, Mr. President, that I am rising to talk about this budget and to criticize it, in some ways in harsh terms. I want to begin by pointing out that I rise to criticize this budget more in disappointment than in anger. I believe with the rhetoric that both parties have been using that it is essential that we work together with the administration. I do not believe we are going to balance the budget based on the efforts of one party, though I think both parties need to do a better job of doing their part. I am the new chairman of the Medicare Subcommittee. I would like to do something worthy of being remembered by taking major, bold steps towards saving Medicare, and I know we can't do that if we do not work with the President. So I would like to focus my comments on the President's budget today, and really focus not so much on the deficiencies of this budget and on those aspects of this budget which represent really a political shield that the President has erected to protect himself from having to make hard decisions; I would like to couch my comments about this budget in terms of what is left to be done, and what we have to do if we begin with the President's budget and we decide we are going to go from here to a balanced Federal budget. I would like to talk about that first. Then I would like to talk about where we differ with the President. What is the real issue that we are going to have to decide in writing the budget of the United States of America for this year? Then I would like to sum up. First of all, let me say that, like most of my colleagues, I was disappointed when our President the night before last told us that we do not need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. My guess is that at the founding of the Republic, when the Bill of Rights was set out as the immediate follow-on to the Constitution, there were those who said, ``Well, we do not need to guarantee freedom of speech. We do not need to guarantee freedom of religion. We do not need to guarantee freedom of assembly. Let us do it ourselves. Let us let the Congress do it. We do not need to guarantee the protection of the rights of the States in those areas where the Federal Government doesn't have specific enumeration in the Constitution. Congress is capable of making those decisions.'' Our Founders decided that trust Congress to guarantee freedom of speech, that they couldn't. That logic didn't make any sense. Our Founders decided that they couldn't trust Congress to guarantee freedom of religion. So they put it in the fundamental contract which bypasses Congress, which bypasses the President, and that is the contract between the Government and its people. That is what the Constitution is. The difference between our position and the President's position is the President is saying after 28 years of failure in a row, after piling now trillions of dollars of debt on generations yet unborn, that we ought to trust Congress; that we ought to trust the President to balance the budget without being required to do it. Obviously, if you look at that big stack of budgets over there on Senator Hatch's desk, for 28 years in a row under Democrat and Republican Presidents, under Democrat and Republican Congresses, we have not done the job. I point out that many of those budgets claim to be in balance. But as I will make clear in my comments about the newest installment, the 29th budget to go on top of 28 budgets that failed to get the job done, if we took this budget on its face and assumed that it was adopted whole by this Congress, it is probably the poorest blueprint among the 28 to get the job done. In fact, for a President who says we do not need to require a balanced budget, that we can do it, it is very instructive to look at the fine print in the President's budget. In fact, it is not even in the budget document itself. You have to get over into the analytical perspectives to find any word as to how the administration actually is going to ensure that the budget is balanced. In fact, it is the very last paragraph in the section of the President's budget that is entitled ``Preview Report.'' In other words, it is about as hidden as you can make something hidden. Let me read basically what it says. It says in very small italic print, ``Mechanism to ensure balance in the year 2002. The budget includes a mechanism to ensure that the President's plan reaches balance in 2002 under OMB or CBO assumptions.'' What is that mechanism? Here is the mechanism. The mechanism is that if things don't work out, the tax cuts that the President has in his budget this year would in the future be taken back. But the tax increases the President has in his budget this year would be forever. The President proposes spending more money now and increasing the deficit now over the last year where we have an actual figure on the deficit, and that is fiscal year 1996. The deficit would rise from $107 billion in 1996 to $121 billion in 1998. But what the President says is, let me raise taxes this year. Let me increase spending this year. And then, if we do not balance the budget in 4 years, I want to take back the tax cuts that we would have given you 4 years from now. And let me spend the money on all of these new programs--which we heard about the other night--but if, in fact, the budget is not balanced, then we are going to have a mechanism to take that money back. Where is the mechanism? We do not know. Nowhere does the President tell us where this mechanism is. Mr. President, this is no guideline for balancing the budget. This is no program for achieving what the President says he is committed to. What we need more than anything else is to, No. 1, sign a contract with the American people through the Constitution that President Clinton can't change and the Republican Congress can't change committing that we are going to do it. And then, second, we need to buy an insurance policy by setting out a program that makes changes now--not 4 years from now--if we fail to get this job done. So I think it is very instructive in this debate about a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that when our President adds the 29th failed budget in a row, nowhere in the budget itself does he talk about how we are going to achieve a balanced budget and an enforcement mechanism. But in one paragraph in Analytical Perspective, he tells us that ``most of the President's tax cuts would sunset, and discretionary budget authority and identified entitlement programs would face an across-the-board limit.'' No one knows what that mechanism really is. But it is very clear what the President intends here, and that is tax now, spend now, and then 4 years from now let somebody else worry about it. President Clinton is not alone in these failures. We have budgets over there in that stack from Republican Presidents who have done the same. Isn't it time that we stop this process with a balanced budget? I say yes. God willing, we will. Let me turn to a discussion of the President's budget. It is hard to come up with analogies because accounting, especially when you are dealing with billions of dollars, bores people to death. Quite frankly, most of us do not know what $1 million is. I have one constituent, Ross Perot, who knows what $1 billion is. Nobody knows what $1 trillion is. But let me try to set it in perspective. Let me just run through and talk about a few of the things that the President is proposing in his budget. No. 1, think of the Government as being overweight and think of what we are trying to do here as going on a 4-year diet. We have been overweight, and we have been claiming to be on a diet for 28 years, but we have a new diet that the President is going to put us on here. Let me start and go through the diet and I am sure at least--well, let me be careful-- some of my colleagues have been on diets as I have been. Others probably are so blessed that they have not, but judge this diet if you needed to lose weight for your happiness or health. First of all, the President takes the amount of weight we need to lose and, by assuming different things, he says let us assume half of the weight loss is going to occur naturally. The first thing the President does in his budget is he changes the economic assumptions of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which gave him their outline that we are required by law to follow in our budget. Before he ever wrote his budget, they told him the rules Congress will be bound by in writing our budget. What the President says in essence is that to achieve a balanced budget we have to have a certain amount of savings. I am going to change assumptions, the President in essence says in his budget, so we assume that half the weight loss is just going to occur naturally. So the President is talking about, if you look at a budget, in this case for a bloated Government which has not been on a real diet in 28 years and shows it, losing half the weight that Congress is bound in writing in our budget to lose--to be able to claim that in fact we have a diet which will achieve our goal, the President assumes half the problem away right off the top. Second, we heard the other night about the President's tax cut and what it was going to provide, but now that we have the numbers--and I do not think it is unusual. I am not trying to be partisan with regard to the President. But let me just give you the rest of the story. The President the other night talked about a $98 billion tax cut and all the good things we were going to get. Now that we get the President's budget, we discover some very startling things. First of all, in the first year, 1997, taxes go up, not down. No. 2, the President has in his only enforcement mechanism a provision that says, 4 years from now, if we do not lose half this weight by assumption and good wishes, he is going to take back the tax cut. So the first year he raises taxes out and out, no doubt about it. Then he is going to give us a tax cut in the future, but he has provisions in the bill that say, if we do not lose half the weight we need on this diet automatically, he is going to take the tax cuts back. The President's tax increases are forever, but the tax cuts are temporary. Also, the President has all kinds of offsetting receipts and hidden taxes and user fees that let the President claim we are controlling spending when we are not. For example, the President assumes we are going to sell spectrum, sell the right to use the radio waves of the country, and that we are going to get $36 billion from that, and that he is going to spend every penny of that $36 billion. The President has nearly $47 billion in new fees that he would have us impose. The President increases nondefense spending. In an era where, the President told us last year, big Government was over, the President proposes in his budget increasing nondefense discretionary spending by $73 billion. And with this increase in spending, guess what. Discretionary spending goes up next year, the deficit from the last real number we have in 1996 goes up next year, taxes go up next year. Next year, taxes will be at the highest level in the history of the United States of America. Defense will be at the lowest level as a percentage of the budget since the mid 1930's. And yet the deficit will be rising relative to what we have achieved in fiscal year 1996. Why? Because of new spending. There are 101 other little tricks in the budget, and each of these tricks is aimed basically at having it both ways. Let me get down to the fundamental choice we are going to have to make. First of all, if we are going to lose this weight, if we are going to balance the budget, we cannot start by assuming that half the problem is going to solve itself. We have to assume that we are going to have to do every bit of it. We are going to have to make the tough choices. And if we really want to do it, we need to be conservative in making choices so that if things do not quite work out, we still get the job done. We cannot get where we are going by beginning in the wrong direction. If our goal is to spend less, why spend more in the first year, the only year of the budget that is binding? If our objective it is to lower taxes, why raise taxes the first year with a program that will cut taxes in the future--but only if you achieve the deficit reduction targets. However, there is a more fundamental issue here, and this is one where there is a legitimate difference, and that is we have two competing visions. The President's vision, despite all the rhetoric of a year ago, is a vision of Government providing more benefits and more services to more people. The President gives us a budget where discretionary spending grows by $73 billion. The President believes, obviously, as reflected in this budget, that Government can spend the money of working families better than they can spend it themselves. The fundamental difference between the President's budget and the vision that most Republicans share is, at its very root, a philosophical issue and a legitimate issue and it is what we ought to be deciding in the budget, and that is what kind of America do we want? The President wants an America with taxes at the highest level in history, spending at the highest level in history for nondefense programs, spending on defense at the lowest level as a share of the budget in a half century. That is his vision, as reflected in this budget. Our vision is different. Our vision is the vision that we want families to spend more money, whereas the President wants Government to spend $73 billion more on nondefense discretionary programs alone. And, look, he wants Government to spend it on good things. He wants Government to spend it on education. He wants Government to spend it on health. He wants Government to spend it on building schools. He wants Government to spend it on all kinds of programs to help people. There is no evil or sinister scheme in what the President wants here. He wants Government to help you with $73 billion in new spending. The fact that it will mean that social spending will be at the highest level in American history and taxes will be at the highest level in American history, that does not change the fact that the President's intentions are both good, from his point of view, and they are honorable. But here is the difference. We are not debating how much money is going to be spent on education. We are not debating how much money is going to be spent on nutrition or health. We are debating who is going to do the spending. President Clinton wants the Government to do the spending and we want the family to do the spending. We want to take this $73 billion of spending increases on all the good things the President wants to spend it on and we want to give that money back to the families who earned it to begin with and we want to let them spend it on education and housing and nutrition. It is fundamentally an issue of whether Government can make better decisions for working families or whether working families can make better decisions. Let me give an example, the most heartrending part of the President's program, health care for children. Who wants to debate health care for children and be against it? Nobody. The President spoke with great eloquence and passion about it. He said 80 percent of the families that do not have private health insurance pay taxes; 20 percent that do not have it, by and large qualify for Medicaid but have never bothered to fill out the papers, in many cases because when a child gets sick and they go into the hospital, at that point they join Medicaid. Now, here is the fundamental issue. The President says working moderate-income families are having trouble making ends meet and, as a result, many of them do not have private health insurance for their children. We agree, Mr. President. We are in total agreement. But the issue is this. Is the solution to create another Government program to help these people? Or is the solution to let these working families keep more of what they earn so they can buy private health insurance for their children? Is the solution more Government? Or is the solution to let families have more freedom about spending their money? Is the solution to spend 73 billion more dollars, as the President has proposed, sitting around the Cabinet table at the White House, sitting around the committee tables here in Congress? Or is the solution to let working families keep more of what they earn and let them spend the money sitting around their kitchen tables? That is the fundamental issue. It is two different visions for two different Americas. If you want to go to the analogy about bridges to the 21st century, it is the debate about, not how we are going to get to the century--we are certainly going to get there. I can guarantee you today that, barring a calamity, we will have a 21st century. The debate is not about building a bridge to it, we are going to get there. The debate is what is the century going to be like when we get there. Is it going to be a century dominated by Government? Is it going to be a century where Government is taking care of us? We started out with a Government taking care of the poorest of the poor. Now the Government is taking care of more and more and more Americans. We are going to take care of moderate-income people because they cannot take care of themselves with the confiscatory tax burden that has them paying 15 cents out of every dollar in payroll taxes and often 28 cents of the last dollar they earn, or certainly 15 cents of the last dollar they earn to the Federal Government, and then State and local taxes on top of it. Is the solution, when families are taxed so they cannot meet their fundamental needs, to tax them more and to give them benefits? I don't think so. I think the solution is to let them keep more of what they earn and let them decide. That is the fundamental issue. That is what we ought to be debating. My appeal to the administration is: Look, let's clear all these other issues off the table. Let's not start out assuming that half of the work to be done is just going to happen miraculously. Let's not tell people we are giving them tax cuts and then take them away 4 years from now, or tell them we are giving them tax cuts when, in fact, in the first year we are raising their taxes even if you believe everything in the President's budget. Let's not say we are going to make tough decisions in the sweet by-and-by, but in the first year have the deficit rising from 1996 and have taxes rising and have spending rising. If we are going to start on this diet, let's not wait until next week and go on a feeding binge this week. Let us start today. So, let's debate real, permanent tax cuts. Let's debate real decisionmaking. And then let's have the debate that America deserves, and the debate is a simple debate but it is fundamental to the future of our country. Do we have too much Government or too little? Can Government take care of you better than you can take care of yourself? Does Government love your children more than you do? Has Government proven that it can educate your children better than you could, if you got to keep more of what you earn and could invest it in their education? Would you rather have a new health care program or would you rather have us cut your taxes so you could buy health insurance that you choose for your children? That is a fundamental issue and that is what we ought to be deciding. But we cannot debate those issues when we are not debating apples to apples. So, my urging today to the President is: Let's go back and rewrite these budgets. Let's assume the same things about where the goalpost is and what we have to do to get to it. And then let's explain to America how we are going to do it, not with a sleight-of-hand, where we are going to come in 4 years from now with an unspecified policy and raise taxes and cut spending but we are not going to tell people how we are going to do it now. Let's put it all out on the table, let the American people look at it, and then let's make a fundamental decision. Finally, and I have spoken too long, but let me end on a note about cooperation. There is one area where we are going to have to have bipartisanship. If all else fails, it is an area where it is absolutely essential that we not let partisanship stop us from acting, and that area is Medicare. I know we talk about gloom and doom and the world coming to an end, and it does not come to an end. And it is not going to end until somebody more powerful by far than we are makes that decision. But Medicare is going broke. It is in the red this year. It will be bankrupt in 4 years. It will have a cumulative deficit of a half a trillion dollars in 10 years. We have a crisis in Medicare that is far beyond the comprehension of most people, as to how big this problem is. If we set out today to fix Medicare permanently, it would cost more money to fix Medicare and guarantee it for our parents and our children than it cost in real dollars to fight and win World War II. Those are the facts. So the one thing we must do, if we are going to do anything this year worthy of being remembered, is we have to begin to address the problems in Medicare. The President has made a bunch of proposals, and in some form or another, I can support virtually everything the President has proposed. I think, obviously, there are areas, with some debate, where the administration would make some changes, but here is the point. We are going to have to do some fundamental reforms in the system, and we are going to have to do them this year. In a sense, I will tell you the sky is falling in Medicare by saying if we don't start this year fixing Medicare, within a decade, we are going to be denying benefits to people, within a decade we are going to have a tax rate on the payroll tax that is going to be substantially higher than it is today, and the crisis is going to be greater even then than it is now. So this is one area where every person who represents the good interest of the country should work together. I am certainly interested in working with the President. We need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I plan to speak at some length on this subject later. But I thought it was important to note, when we have stacked up 28 budget failures, Democratic and Republican budget failures that have not gotten the job done, that have failed the American people, that have mortgaged the future of our children, in the current form, the President's budget issued today will fail. It cannot and will not balance the budget, and our goal has to be to work with the President, if we can, to make this budget a real budget that will do the job. I, for one, am willing to work for that goal. I yield the floor. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this bill would guarantee that active duty military personnel and their dependents have the right to vote in Federal, State, and local elections. On December 19, 1996, Texas Rural Legal Aid [TLRA] filed suit against Val Verde County, TX, alleging that 800 military absentee ballots were improperly counted in local races. The challenge argues that the Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Voting Act was not intended to allow voting in State and local elections. The Military Voting Rights Act of 1997 amends the Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Voting Act to make explicit the right of active duty military personnel and their dependents to vote in all Federal, State, and local elections. This change is consistent with the way the law has historically been interpreted by State election officials. In addition, the Military Voting Rights Act of 1997 amends the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 to extend additional voting rights protections to our Nation's military forces. This section guarantees that extended absences incurred as a result of service to the Nation do not result in the loss of residency for voting purposes. The assertion of TLRA that our soldiers can lose the right to vote in State and local elections by virtue of service-connected absences is absurd and must not be allowed to go unanswered. The Military Voting Rights Act of 1997 makes it clear that those who protect our freedom should not be denied the right to exercise freedoms they protect. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this bill would guarantee that active duty military personnel and their dependents have the right to vote in Federal, State, and local elections. On December 19, 1996, Texas Rural Legal Aid [TLRA] filed suit against Val Verde County, TX, alleging that 800 military absentee ballots were improperly counted in local races. The challenge argues that the Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Voting Act was not intended to allow voting in State and local elections. The Military Voting Rights Act of 1997 amends the Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Voting Act to make explicit the right of active duty military personnel and their dependents to vote in all Federal, State, and local elections. This change is consistent with the way the law has historically been interpreted by State election officials. In addition, the Military Voting Rights Act of 1997 amends the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 to extend additional voting rights protections to our Nation's military forces. This section guarantees that extended absences incurred as a result of service to the Nation do not result in the loss of residency for voting purposes. The assertion of TLRA that our soldiers can lose the right to vote in State and local elections by virtue of service-connected absences is absurd and must not be allowed to go unanswered. The Military Voting Rights Act of 1997 makes it clear that those who protect our freedom should not be denied the right to exercise freedoms they protect. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, let me now turn to the subject that I came to the floor to speak on. Our colleague from Alabama will be here later. Let me explain, if I may, this problem and where we are in the discussion and why this is a very important issue for all 100 Members of the Senate and for all 260 million Americans. We have an all-volunteer military force. We ask young men and women, in putting on the uniform of this country, to serve all over the world far away from home in lonely places. We ask them to defend our freedom and independence and our interests. We sometimes call upon them to give their lives in the service of our country. I am not aware that ever before in the history of America has there been any serious challenge, up until the case I am about to talk about, of the right of our military personnel to vote. My dad was a sergeant in the Army; a career soldier. Like many people in the military, my dad decided where he wanted to declare as his legal residence. Millions of people wearing the uniform of the country over the history of our country since they serve all over the world tend to pick an area as their legal residence with the objective of coming back there to live when they get out of the service, or at least to have a place-holder as their identity with the very country they serve. We have a case now before the Federal court in my home State of Texas in Val Verde County, Del Rio, which is the county where Laughlin Air Force Base is located, where we have the Texas Rural Legal Aid, which is predominantly funded by the Federal taxpayer. They, in clear violation of the law based on the provisions of the appropriations bill which we passed on the floor of the Senate last year which prohibited them from engaging in lawsuits related to political activity, have filed a lawsuit challenging the right of military personnel who are registered to vote in Val Verde County but who are not currently residing in the county during their military service to have their votes counted. Interestingly enough, they say, ``Oh, you have a right to vote for President. You have a right to vote for Senate or Congress. But you do not have a right to vote in county elections.'' This is the first time that I am aware of that this challenge has ever been made. The challenge is based on the Voting Rights Act, interestingly enough, because the argument is made that the roughly 800 military absentee ballots were cast by predominantly white voters and that the makeup of the general electorate was majority Hispanic and therefore there has been a violation of the Voting Rights Act by the fact that these absentee ballots have diluted minority voting strength. I am not here today to testify what the racial makeup is of the electorate in Val Verde County. I do not know the exact numbers. I do not have any idea what the racial makeup is of the 800 absentee ballots. But the issue is, Do our warriors have a right to vote? Do those who protect our freedom have the basic guarantee of exercising that freedom? As a result, according to the claimants in this lawsuit, of these 800 absentee ballots, 2 Republicans were elected. Their argument is that if you do not count these 800 absentee ballots from military personnel, 2 Democrats would have been elected. Let me say, Madam President, I do not know that is the case, and that is not really the issue here. The issue here is the right of people to vote. Let me, before going further, say that when the Legal Services Corporation was notified that Texas Rural Legal Aid, their grantee in Texas, had violated the law, they asked Texas Rural Legal Aid to give them an explanation by a certain deadline. They then asked Texas Rural Legal Aid to cease and desist. What Texas Rural Legal Aid has done, having done all of the workup for the case, is they have now moved to the position of being expert witnesses. This is clearly violating the intent of Congress. I want to put my colleagues on notice that God did not decree that appropriations bills have to pass, and we are going to address this issue in the upcoming Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. And unless we can get satisfaction that the Legal Services Corporation is going to abide by the law, those who are ready to pass that bill without those guarantees better be ready to get 60 votes. Let me turn to the point I wanted to make today. I discovered yesterday that the Legal Services Corporation through their grantee, Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc., sent out a questionnaire to 800 American warriors stationed all over the world, and it has this big official heading of ``In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,'' and then it has all of this legalese. Then it has a questionnaire that in single space form is 23 pages long encompassing 54 comprehensive questions, many with multiple parts, and someone has to fill it out and they have to get it notarized where they are swearing under oath. I would like to give you an indication from this questionnaire of the kind of things that are being asked, and I have up here a blowup of one little part of question 21. Imagine, you are in Berlin or you are in Korea. You have a job to do there. You are manning a Patriot battery in Korea. Your family is at home. And you get a document 23 pages long telling you that you have 3 days to fill it out. Just look at these questions. These are the people who exercised their right to vote, something we encourage people to do. So this warrior is in South Korea defending the frontiers of freedom and they get this questionnaire. And this is just one section of one of the 50- odd questions: What is the complete address of the place where your spouse lived on November 5, 1996? If it is located outside the territorial limits of the United States please also indicate the last place your spouse resided which was in the territorial limits of the United States. Did your spouse usually sleep there at night? Yes. No. If no, what is the address where your spouse sleeps at night? Approximately how long (expressed in months, days, and years) has your spouse slept at this address? If your spouse did not then or does not now usually sleep at this address explain the reason(s) your spouse does not do so. Is there no shame? Is there no shame? The Federal judge who approved this questionnaire ought to be embarrassed--ought to be embarrassed. It is outrageous that taxpayer money was used to send out a questionnaire to our warriors who are out defending freedom all over the world asking them because they dared to vote where their husband or wife sleeps at night. Madam President, this is absolutely outrageous. We will shortly have a letter signed by the majority of the Members of the Senate urging our Attorney General to enter this case. We are dealing with two local candidates. I do not have any real knowledge of either one of them. I do not know what kind of attorney they have. I do not know how good a job they are doing presenting their case. But it seems to me that this is a fundamental issue: do people who wear the uniform of this country have a right to vote in the location that they can choose as their legal residence? I obviously believe they do. It turns our whole political system on its head. To suggest that someone who has chosen Val Verde County as their legal residence while they are serving in the Air Force all around the world has less right to vote there because their race may be different from the race that someone claims to make up the population of that region is clearly outrageous, is a national issue of profound importance. I want the Attorney General of the United States of America to enter this case and defend the rights of our warriors to vote. And if they are voting and elected one candidate and defeated another, is that not what votes are about? Do we not each cast our vote believing that it might make a difference? Madam President, I do not know whether or not it made any difference. I do not know the racial makeup of the 800 people who voted absentee who are in the Air Force, who have claimed Val Verde as their legal residence. I do not know how that changes the makeup of the electorate or racial basis, and I do not care. Our society is too preoccupied with race. The whole reason that this is before a Federal judge is that race is being used as an issue to take what is basically a voting rights issue, which is a State of Texas issue, and elevate it to the Federal Court based on a claim about the ethnic makeup of members of the military who voted absentee. I believe this is a very serious issue. I believe it is a terrible indictment of the Clinton administration, that they have not intervened in this case. The Secretary of State of the State of Texas, the chief elections official of our State, has said that this lawsuit clearly in no way represents the election laws of our State. Our Attorney General has said that requiring this kind of questionnaire and documentation turns the whole election system on its head. The people who did not vote absentee who are not in the military received no such questionnaire. Let me tell you what this questionnaire is about. This questionnaire is about voter intimidation. That is what this questionnaire is about. You imagine, if you are manning a military weapons system in South Korea and you took the time to vote in your elections in the county you claim is your legal residence and you get a 23-page legal document with 54 questions, many of which have numerous subquestions asking you where your wife sleeps at night or where your husband sleeps at night, and if your spouse does not sleep where you do, why not. What do you think this is going to do to their willingness to vote in the next election? This is as clear a case of voter intimidation as it would be to have a literacy test written in Chinese. The clear objective of this questionnaire is to intimidate voters and not just any voters--people who wear the uniform of this country and who defend the very freedoms that we are now seeing the Federal Government through the Legal Services Corporation seek to deny them. Madam President, I think this is one of the clearest outrages that I have seen in my period of time in public service. I think it is something that has to be stopped. I want my colleagues to know that since this is occurring in my State, and I speak for Senator Hutchison on this issue, we intend to see this fixed. I want to call on our Attorney General, Janet Reno--and let me say I had a very nice talk with her yesterday. She has promised me that she will look at this on an expedited basis. We had previously sent her a letter over a week ago. My concern here is that we are talking about two locally elected officials who have been barred from taking office. They won the election, nobody doubts that. But they have been barred from taking office while Texas Rural Legal Aid, funded by the Legal Services Corporation, tries to intimidate military personnel who voted. I don't know whether they can afford counsel. I don't know how good a job they are doing defending the right of our warriors to vote. I want the full weight of the Attorney General brought into this issue. Do our warriors serving in the military have a right to vote in that area that they choose to designate as their legal residence? Let me remind my colleagues, you don't have to own a home to be a legal resident. You don't have to actually reside there if you are in the military. You simply have to make a designation. I see this as voter intimidation. I see it as a gross abuse of the Voting Rights Act. I cannot imagine that we would maintain a military facility in a county that did not let our military personnel vote. I would not--I don't care where it is--I would not support spending one dime to keep a military facility in a county that denied the right of military personnel to vote. I think the time has come to make it clear that this old deal of abusing military personnel has to end. From the beginning of the Republic, we have wanted Washington and Uncle Sam to send the soldier boys out to build the fort, to buy our goods, and then they are abused. This is one of the worst cases of abuse that I have ever seen, and I am going to do everything I can, everything within my power, to see that this is fixed. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coast Guard personnel have a right to choose a legal residence. I want to read, in concluding, a quote from Maj. Paul Smith. Maj. Paul Smith is in the Air Force. He grew up in Del Rio. He attended high school there. He went off to college, and then he came back to Laughlin to do pilot training. He declares Val Verde County as his residence. We have been doing this since the Constitution was written. From the colonial period, we have allowed people wearing the uniform of the country, serving around the continent at first and now all over the world, to designate where they are going to exercise their legal rights. Maj. Paul Smith grew up in Val Verde County in Del Rio, attended high school there, went to pilot training there, and he says he is a resident of and chooses to vote in Del Rio. I say he has that right. Here is what he said about this document sent out by Texas Rural Legal Aid and the Legal Services Corporation demanding to know where his wife sleeps at night. He said: ``This really infuriates me. I'm serving my country, putting my life on the line, protecting the right to vote. If they throw my vote out, well, that's not good.'' It sure is not good, and it is not going to happen. It is not going to happen. So I want to thank my colleagues for giving me this time. I want to call again on the Attorney General to enter this case. Defend the right of those who wear the uniform of this country to vote, whatever their race is, however they vote. The issue here is not race. The issue is not who won and who lost elections. The issue is, do people in the military, when they are moving all over the country and all over the planet, have a right to designate an area where they want to exercise their right to vote? It seems to me you cannot be more basic than that, and it doesn't matter what the other factors are in this case. If somebody voted illegally, throw their vote out. But to indict every military personnel who voted absentee because their vote might have changed the racial composition of the election, and to send them an intimidating legal document demanding they answer it in 3 days, asking where their spouse slept, it seems to me is clear, unadulterated voter intimidation, and it is something that needs to be stopped. I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I understand that our colleagues today on the Democratic side of the aisle are offering in the Judiciary Committee an amendment that says that, if we require the Federal Government to live on a budget, if we fulfill the constitutional requirement that Thomas Jefferson thought necessary when he first saw the document upon returning from France, we ought to set up a system where we count the Social Security trust fund while it is in surplus between now and the year 2002 as part of the accounting system of the Government but that after 2002 we not count it as part of the budget of the Federal Government. What our colleagues would have us do is to make it easy now to spend money but that when the Social Security system begins to move into the red, to not count that deficit as part of the deficit of the Federal Government. If we are going to balance the Federal budget, if we are going to guarantee the future of Social Security and Medicare and of Government services that our people need and deserve, we are going to have to control spending. We cannot balance the budget by simply exempting the largest program of the Federal Government from the budget. And the idea of saying that in the future, when Social Security is running huge deficits, it will not count as part of the budget, it seems to me, is not only shameless but is typical of an era where our own President in this year's budget is proposing that we take the single fastest growing item in Medicare, home health care, that we take it out of the Medicare trust fund in order to make the books look better. I do not think you have to have much imagination to understand that, if you do not count the deficit of Social Security in the future, not only will we have no incentive to control that deficit and make the system solvent but more and more Government functions will be shifted over into the part that does not count for a balanced budget amendment. So I think we all know what the game is here. The game is we have a lot of people who promised in the election that they would vote for a constitutional amendment to force Congress and the President to balance the budget and now we are seeing gamesmanship where they say, ``Well, I would vote for it but only if the largest spending program of the Federal Government were excluded and only if we could use the benefit from the surplus now, and only if we do not have to make up the deficit later.'' Have our Democratic colleagues who have offered this proposal no shame? We have a choice as to whether we are going to change America. If you want to change America, you are for the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and you are for a balanced budget where every program counts, where every program is important, where the Federal Government is forced to pay its bills. How many families would like to be required to balance their budget without counting their mortgage payment or without counting the cost of their new car? I believe we make a mockery of the process. I look forward to the day when we are going to stand up on the floor of the U.S. Senate and we are going to say yes or no. As we look back at the campaign literature of some of the very people who are now undecided and we look at what they said about being for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, what we are going to really test is, does our word count for anything? When we tell people we are for something and they vote for us and send us here to do it, will we do it, or will we engage in gimmicks to try to confuse the people and try to cover what is little more than going back on our word? Madam President, I look forward to having my name down as one who is for the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I have risen today to talk about a problem in my State with regard to the voting rights of military personnel. Our dear colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, is on his way to the floor to join me in this discussion. While I am waiting for him, for at least a moment I want to talk about another subject. I want to say a little bit about the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, yesterday I joined with Senator Mack and Senator Hutchison in introducing S. 124, the National Research Investment Act of 1997. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The text of the bill follows:

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, in 1965, 5.7 percent of the federal budget was spent on non-defense research and development. Thirty-two years later, that figure has dropped by two-thirds to 1.9 percent. In no year since 1970 has the United States spent as large a percentage of its GDP on non-defense research and development as Japan or Germany. Unfortunately, recent signs point to this situation becoming worse rather than better. From 1992 through 1995, for the first time in 25 years, real federal spending on research declined for 4 straight years. If we don't restore the high priority once afforded science and technology in the federal budget and increase federal investment in research, it will be impossible to maintain the United States' position as the technological leader of the world. As a nation, we have an interest in the research funding decisions of the private sector. Investing in basic science and medical research can provide much needed help to all our technology companies without giving any single company a special advantage over its competitors. Our goal should be to raise all the boats in the harbor, not just the ones belonging to the politically well-connected. The United States simply does not spend enough on basic research. This bill would double the amount spent by the federal government on non-defense research over ten years in a dozen agencies, programs, and activities, from $32.5 billion in FY 1997 to $65 billion in FY 2007, making sure that within that amount the funding for the National Institutes of Health would double from $12.75 billion to $25.5 billion. At the same time, in order to be sure the increase in funding is spent wisely, the bill gives priority to investments in basic science and medical research in order to develop new scientific knowledge which will be available in the public domain. The legislation does not allow funds to be used for the commercialization of technologies, and allocates funds using a peer review system. Expanding the nations's commitment to basic research in science and medicine is a critically important investment in the future of our Nation.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, when America trades, America wins. The United States of America is the greatest trading Nation the world has ever known. From beef to computers to engineering, last year American workers exported more than $830 billion in goods and services. No other country even came close. Over the last decade, America's exports in goods of all kinds grew by 131 percent. By comparison, Europe's exports of goods grew by 55 percent, and Japan's total grew less than half the rate of Europe's by 24 percent. The U.S. trade expansion involved virtually every sector of the economy, but it was particularly pronounced in the export of manufactured goods. From 1985 to 1995, U.S. exports of manufactured goods grew by over 180 percent. That growth rate was six times the rate for Germany and almost nine times Japan's export growth. In short, trade is our game. American workers, businesses, and farms are more competitive and far more successful than the merchants of fear and defeatism advertise. Fortunately, we have resisted incessant cries to model our economic and trade policies after those of Japan, Germany, and others, and we have outperformed them in every respect. Lately, one does not hear much talk about the Japanese economic miracle, and Germany's double-digit unemployment rate finds few admirers. Instead, what Pericles said of ancient Athens in the days of that city's glory may without fear be said of us. ``The magnitude of our city draws the produce of the world into our harbor, so that to the Athenian the fruits of other countries are as familiar a luxury as those of his own.'' In fact, successful economic and trade policies have resulted in the addition of 18 million jobs to the Nation since 1985, 6 million jobs more than the total job creation for Japan and the nations of the European Community combined. We must not forget that the most valuable products of trade are high- wage jobs. An export-related job in America pays better, 15 percent better, than the average pay in the Nation. Today, America exports over $26,000 in manufactured goods for every man and woman employed in manufacturing. In January 1988, President Reagan gave his final State of the Union address. As a veteran of those trade battles, President Reagan warned us all: ``A creative, competitive America is the answer to a changing world, not trade wars that would close doors, create great barriers, and destroy millions of jobs. We should always remember: protectionism is destructionism.'' Mr. President, on May 21, 1986, I introduced legislation to begin negotiations for a free trade agreement with Mexico. On February 26, 1987, I introduced a bill that laid out a framework for negotiating a North American free trade area, and on June 26 of that same year the Senate adopted an amendment that I offered to the omnibus trade bill, authorizing the negotiation of a North American Free Trade Agreement. On February 7, 1989, I once again introduced trade legislation and called for a free trade agreement encompassing the entire Western Hemisphere. I have introduced similar legislation in the 103d and the 104th Congress, providing authority for negotiation of a free trade agreement with the nations of the Americas. Today I am introducing two pieces of legislation to extend free trade from Point Barrow, AK, to Cape Horn at the tip of South America. The first bill, the Americas Free Trade Act, will provide fast track authority for consideration of free trade agreements with any or all of the nations of the Western Hemisphere. While renewing fast track authority, the legislation provides two very important reforms made necessary by the abuse of the fast track authority in the most recent trade agreement. First of all, the legislation explicitly excludes labor and environmental provisions from the fast track approval process. These are important issues to be addressed in our relations with other nations, but the Senate must not surrender its constitutional treaty review responsibilities over these important matters. The legislation also deals with the problem of unrelated matters being included in a bill implementing a trade agreement. Similar to the Byrd Rule that excludes extraneous matter from reconciliation legislation, this bill will permit a point of order to be raised against any provision in an implementing bill that is not necessary to carry out the provisions of the trade agreement. This point of order, as with the Byrd Rule, would strike the offending provision from the bill rather than cause the entire bill to fail. As with legislation that I have introduced in the past, this bill provides special procedures for trade agreements with Cuba. In short, Fidel Castro's Cuba would not be eligible, but a free trade agreement with a free Cuba would be made a national priority. I am also introducing today legislation to provide for Chile to join the North American Free Trade Agreement. While I would prefer the extension of fast track authority for free trade agreements for any nation of the Western Hemisphere, as the Americas Free Trade Act would do, I do not believe that we should delay the process of including Chile in NAFTA, or hold Chile hostage to that process, should a broader trade bill require more time to be enacted. I believe that a free trade agreement with Chile could and should be concluded this year, and I am eager to see the progress toward lower barriers to trade and economic growth move forward. We are the best competitor the world has ever known, and we have the biggest stake. Trade and expanding economic opportunity power America's engines of economic growth and prosperity. Let us embrace them, not destroy them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Americas Free Trade Act and the NAFTA Accession Act, together with an outline of each bill, be included in the Record.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Regular order.

Mr. GRAMM. I don't think there is a sufficient second. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the issue before us is not about the right of a woman to choose. It is not even about the right to life for unborn children. This debate is about a repulsive procedure which should not be condoned in any civilized society. We are talking about banning a late-term abortion that is carried out through a gruesome procedure where a living baby is delivered through the birth canal feet first-- everything except the head--and then the life of the child is terminated. The child is literally 3 inches away from the full constitutional protection of the law. This is an issue about how civilized our society is and what practices we will allow to be conducted on human beings. So I hope my colleagues, no matter where they stand on the issue of right to life or the right of a woman to choose, will recognize that this is a special case. This is a gruesome, uncivilized procedure, and this procedure should be banned. I hope each of us will think through this issue and ponder it--not only in our minds but in our hearts. I believe, if Senators will do that, we will override this veto, and that we will ban this practice that no civilized society should condone. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Could we have order, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I rise in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. My objective this morning is to, No. 1, define what it is that we are here to protect, and No. 2, to define constitutionally what this issue is all about, because I sense that there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the country as to what we are trying to do. I will talk very briefly about the Hawaii case and why we are here dealing with this issue. I would like to talk about its potential impact on other States, such as my State, Texas and then I would like to talk about a secondary, but nonetheless important, issue: the economic ramifications of what we are doing. Let me be the first to say that the traditional family has stood for 5,000 years. There is no moment in recorded history when the traditional family was not recognized and sanctioned by a civilized society--it is the oldest institution that exists. The traditional family is found in the oldest writings of mankind, and is an institution which people decided was so important for happiness and progress that it was worth singling out and was worth giving special status above all other contracts in terms of a relationship among people. So when some question what, 50 years from now, we are going to think about those are defending the traditional family today, I would just remind them that the traditional family has stood as the seminal institution which has formed the foundation for civilized society for some 5,000 years. While I am confident that there will be Senators debating other issues 50 years from now, I am even more confident that if, at that time, our society is one which we treasure and one which we admire and love, then it will be a society which respects and recognizes the special status of the traditional family. We are here today because the traditional family is important to America. Further, it has always been important to civilization. Our Founders recognize that, and they set out a procedure in the Constitution which is as clear as any procedure could be as to what is Congress' role in this matter. Let me begin by referring you to article IV, section 1, of the Constitution. Article IV, section 1 says: ``Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.'' In other words, article IV, section 1 of the Constitution requires States to recognize the contracts, the judicial proceedings, and the public records of every other State. Obviously, at the top of this list would be marriages. But it specifically gives Congress the power to prescribe under what circumstances such recognition will occur. My first point is, those who say Congress has no role in this issue need only read the second sentence of article IV, section 1 of the Constitution to see that Congress has the only role in prescribing the circumstance under which one State must recognize a marriage that occurs in another State. We are here today doing exactly what the Founding Fathers prescribed in the Constitution that we should do. Now, where did this issue come from? Well, its roots come from the fact that the Hawaiian constitution outlaws discrimination based on sex--basically, they have an equal rights amendment. In 1991, three different groups of people argued that they, in trying to engage in a same-sex marriage, were being discriminated against on the basis of sex, and that this violated the equal rights amendment written into the constitution of Hawaii. Essentially, their argument was that when two women or two men are denied a marriage license, one of them is being discriminated against based on the fact that they are of the same sex as the other person applying for the license. This is the foundation of the current judicial proceedings in Hawaii. The Supreme Court in Hawaii ruled on this equal rights argument and sent the case back to the lower court, with the instructions that the lower court, in order to deny these three groups of people a marriage license, had to show that the State had an overriding interest in this issue. Now, obviously, we are hopeful such a case can be made and that the ruling will be in favor of preserving the special union between a man and a woman which forms the foundation of our traditional family. The point is if the Hawaii court rules under the equal rights amendment of the Hawaii constitution--a provision that is not in the U.S. Constitution, though it was long debated as a potential addition-- if the court rules in favor of single-sex marriages on the basis of sex discrimination, a failure to pass the Defense of Marriage Act here today will require the State of Texas, the State of Kansas, and every other State in the Union to recognize and give full faith and credit to single-sex marriages which occur in Hawaii. There are those who say this is not a congressional matter, that it should be left up to the courts, but if this is left up to the courts, under article IV, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, they will have no choice except to impose same-sex marriages on Texas, so long as they are sanctioned by Hawaii. The Constitution allows Congress--in fact, gives us the responsibility--to prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof. What we are doing today in this bill is saying three things: No. 1, we are saying that there can be no question, as far as Federal law is concerned, that States have the right to ban same-sex marriages. No. 2, we are saying that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and, therefore, with regard to the requirements of the full faith and credit clause, no matter what happens in Hawaii or any other State, no other State will be required to recognize a same-sex marriage as a traditional marriage. Finally, we are saying that the Federal Government, itself, will recognize only marriages that occur between a man and a woman. Now, let me talk very briefly about the economic ramifications of this. Speaking as a person who used to practice economics, when compared to the power of the family as the foundation of our civilization and our culture, dollars and cents--in this context--are not terribly important. But, as a secondary issue, they are important, and let me explain where. A failure to pass this bill, if the Hawaii court rules in favor of same-sex marriages, will create, through the full faith and credit provision of the Constitution, a whole group of new beneficiaries--no one knows what the number would be--tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, potentially more--who will be beneficiaries of newly created survivor benefits under Social Security, Federal retirement plans, and military retirement plans. It will trigger a whole group of new benefits under Federal health plans. And not only will it trigger these benefits for the Federal Government, but under the full faith and credit provision of the Constitution, it will impose--through teacher retirement plans, State retirement plans, State medical plans, and even railroad retirement plans--a whole new set of benefits and expenses which have not been planned or budgeted for under current law. So here are the issues in very simple fashion: No. 1, is there anything unique about the traditional family? For every moment of recorded history, we have said yes. In every major religion in history, from the early Greek myths of the ``Iliad'' and the ``Odyssey'' to the oldest writings of the Bible to the oldest teachings of civilization, governments have recognized the traditional family as the foundation of prosperity and happiness, and in democratic societies, as the foundation of freedom. Human beings have always given traditional marriage a special sanction. Not that there cannot be contracts among individuals, but there is something unique about the traditional family in terms of what it does for our society and the foundation it provides--this is something that every civilized society in 5,000 years of recorded history has recognized. Are we so wise today that we are ready to reject 5,000 years of recorded history? I do not think so. I think that even the greatest society in the history of the world--which we have here today in the United States of America--that even a society as great as our own trifles with the traditional family at great peril to itself. I intend to vote for the Defense of Marriage Act today because I want to defend, protect, and even perpetuate this historical recognition of the traditional family as the foundation for society. I believe the Federal Government is given clear a role in this debate by article IV, section 1 of the Constitution, which allows Congress to prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof. To fail to exercise our constitutional responsibility would mean that States which would not otherwise choose to recognize same-sex marriages would be forced to do so, if in this case Hawaii grants that recognition. To say that we should stay out of this issue is to simply endorse same-sex marriages. I believe that we have an obligation to act. I believe this is a very clear, defining issue and I think it is one of those issues where it ought to be very clear where everybody stands. I stand with the traditional family. I do not believe 5,000 years of recorded history have been in error. I believe the traditional family-- the union of a man and a woman, upon which our entire civilization is based--is unique, and I believe it is the foundation of our prosperity, our freedom, and our happiness. I want to defend this and I am confident that we will do so on this very day. I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it is a very short amendment. It will minimize the debate if we just have it read.