Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, very much, Mr. President. Amendment No. 971 (Purpose: To require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to conduct, complete, and transmit to Congress a comprehensive economic evaluation of the direct and indirect effects of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact)

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning after hearing some of my colleagues earlier talking and debating about the proposed tax cuts that is now in conference. The question is always: Who qualifies for the tax cut? How much is that tax cut going to be? Who is going to receive what share of that tax cut? I would like to start out by saying that it is kind of ironic to hear some on the floor arguing about these tax cut packages because these are the same individuals who, along with President Clinton, just 4 years ago were on this floor arguing for the largest tax increase on Americans in history. When we look at this major tax increase of just 4 years ago, I would like to relate to the comments made by the minority leader, the Senator from South Dakota, earlier this week when he argued that the $77 billion tax cut was not fair. That is what we have heard here this morning on the floor--it is not fair. While I don't believe it was fair in 1993 to raise the largest tax increase in history on Americans, they say, ``Well, it was only aimed at the rich.'' But let me tell you. Let me remind my colleagues what happened in 1993. After campaigning on middle-class tax relief in 1993, President Clinton turned around and then raised taxes by $263 billion, again making that the largest tax increase in history. But he said it was only for the rich. But everybody paid more, including $114 billion in new income taxes, $24 billion in new gasoline taxes, $35 billion in new business taxes, and $30 billion in new payroll taxes. Then you add on top of that nearly $25 billion more in Social Security taxes. In other words, if you work, if you are retired, if you drove a car, if you owned a business, or if you paid any kind of income tax, you paid for the 1993 income tax increase. I heard also this morning that what we are talking about today in this tax package is that about $77 billion so far of net tax relief is ``substantial'' tax relief. Well, when you get back only $1 on every $4 that was raised in 1993, I don't call this ``substantial.'' This is a meager tax package that we are talking about. The reason that it is not fair, in my opinion, is because there is not enough in this tax package to go around. It does not take a mathematician also to calculate that if taxes raised were $263 billion 4 years ago and you get $77 billion back now, that is not a good deal. If you look at since the tax reduction that everybody blames for the deficits, and that is the Ronald Reagan tax cut in 1981, they say since that tax cut it has resulted in all these deficits: We have these deficits today because of the Ronald Reagan tax cut. In fact, we have had 10 tax increases since 1981--10, over $850 billion in new tax increases since 1981. And now we are talking about $77 billion. This is less than $1 on every $10 of tax increases over the last 10 years. We also hear about, well, who is going to be getting these tax breaks? The top 20 percent, they say, are going to get over 60 percent of the tax cut. And as we just heard the Senator from Texas say, the top 20 percent of wage earners in this country, which is $60,000 and over--and most people do not consider making $60,000 rich, but they pay 80 percent of income taxes in this country today. I also heard about a couple of instances--and I did not have time this morning to bring to the floor pictures of families, but let me read a couple that were mentioned here today. They showed pictures of a young family making about $25,000 a year, and they said under the Republican tax plan they were going to get no tax cut this year. But for that family making $25,000 a year, they pay total, with two children, about $3,000 in income taxes and payroll taxes, but they receive $1,100 in EITC. EITC, that is earned income tax credit, an earned income tax credit that was passed in 1986, increased in 1993. So this family making $25,000 a year does receive a tax refund, a tax refund of $1,100, not zero but $1,100. What they want to do is to add to that. Now, I will talk about that later. They also spoke about and had the pictures of a young family making $20,000 a year, and they said, under the Republican plan, they would get no tax refunds this year. But in fact that family making $20,000 a year will pay this year about $1,800 in payroll and income taxes, but they will receive a refund under EITC of over $2,150. So that family, granted, a hard-working middle-class family, but they are receiving some tax relief under the current system. Let us go to the family making $31,000 a year. Say the husband is making $9 an hour, the wife $6, or vice versa, they are working 40 hours a week trying to raise a family of two children, have to pay child care, et cetera. And what does this family get? They are going to pay this year about $4,300 in payroll and income taxes and they receive zero under EITC. Now, those two children will not get, under this plan, any tax relief if they are 13 or 14 years old. So who is not getting the relief here? And when they talk about making it fair, we do want to make this fair, but we want to make sure that those families making $31,000 to $60,000 a year are also going to join and also receive some kind of tax relief today. Now, I would like to see every family get a $500 per child tax credit refund. That would be great. But if we are going to talk about fairness what we are going to have to do is make this pie larger. The $77 billion is not enough to make sure that all families will enjoy some kind of tax relief. Now, if we want to start talking about class warfare, and that is what we hear in the Chamber all the time, that is, we are going to give it to the rich but not the poor, that is not true. We want to make sure that all families are going to get some kind of tax relief. So along with the tax relief already in the system under the earned income credit, we also need to expand that so other working families also are going to receive some kind of tax relief this year. Everybody needs to share, not only the low income but also middle-income working families. If my colleagues are serious, let us enlarge the tax cut. When we talk about the $77 billion that is in this package, if you want to spread that over what this economy is going to generate over the next 5 years, a $7 or $8 trillion a year economy and we are saying, well, we are going to have this substantial tax package, it would be comparable to looking for a new car and the car dealer said, well, this is the sticker price, but I am going to take a penny off from that and I am going to make you a real deal on this car. That is exactly about what the $77 billion is equal to when you put it into context of what this economy is going to do over the next 5 years. You are going to get a penny back on the purchase of a new car. So what makes the entire debate over what is fair and equitable in this tax relief package so ridiculous is that Washington is not willing to give up more of the money. So I just wanted to come to the floor and talk a little bit about how we do not want to make this a class warfare issue, that we want to make sure all Americans receive some kind of tax relief. And again, as I said, since 1981, American families have seen their taxes go up 10 times--$850 billion in new tax increases in the last 16 years. Now we are talking about tax relief, and we want to make sure that tax relief is fair and it is broad based, and that those families making between $30,000 and $60,000 a year will also have an opportunity to share in some reduction in their tax burden. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today Senator Moseley-Braun and I are introducing the Efficient Currency Act of 1997. The bill calls for a newly designated, golden-colored $1 coin to replace the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin. The argument for a $1 coin is simple: it saves money. According to estimates of the General Accounting Office and the Federal Reserve, replacing the $1 bill with a coin saves the Government $2.28 billion during the first 5 years it circulates. As we consider plans to balance the budget and eliminate Government waste, I believe that carrying a $1 coin along with $2 bills is a relatively painless option compared to the alternatives of raising taxes or cutting important programs. A public opinion poll conducted in May 1997 reveals that 58 percent of the American public favors replacing the $1 bill with a coin when informed that such a change would save the Government $456 million annually. I want to stress that the Efficiency Currency Act of 1997 does not call for a phase out of the $1 bill until 1 billion $1 coins authorized under this legislation are in circulation. If the public rejects the new coin, the phase-out will not occur. Unless this legislation is approved in the near future, the U.S. Mint will begin the process of minting more of the unpopular Susan B. Anthony coins by 1999. The supply of Anthony coins in Government inventories fell by a total of 137 million coins in 1995 and 1996. Only 146 million remains as of May 30. The inventory has been falling at the rate of about 5 million per month, because Anthony dollars are used at hundreds of vending locations, by more than a dozen major transit systems, and by the U.S. Postal Service. Contrary to reports by opponents of the dollar coin, the U.S. Postal Service has no plans to discontinue the use of the Anthony dollar in their self-service operations. The timeframe for a decision by Congress is short, because the U.S. Mint has stated that it needs 30 months to design and fabricate a new $1 coin. I think one of the most compelling reasons to replace a $1 bill with a $1 coin is the cost savings. First, the Treasury Department will save money. A $1 coin lasts about 30 years while costing about 8 cents. A $1 bill is significantly more expensive, as it lasts only 1 year and 1 month at a cost of 4 cents per bill. Second, the private sector will save money. A $1 coin is easier to process than a $1 bill. Paper money received on buses must be hand- straightened at a cost of over $20 per 1,000, or about 2 cents for each dollar. Coins can be processed for less than one-tenth of the cost. The change to a $1 coin is estimated to save the mass transit industry $124 million annually. Furthermore, vending operators could avoid placing dollar bill acceptors, which cost between $300 and $400 each, on each vending machine. The additional cost of these machines eventually must be passed on to customers. In addition, bill acceptors frequently do not work and are more expensive to maintain than coin mechanisms. Another benefit is that many consumers will actually have less, not more, change in their pocket. Instead of having to use 4, 8, or 12 quarters to pay for mass transit, parking meters, phone calls, and car washes, they will use dollar coins weighing a fraction the weight of many quarters. The visually impaired support the introduction of a $1 coin because the $1 bill can be confused with bills of higher denominations. A useable $2 coin will permit them to complete small transactions without ever having to use paper money. This legislation is called the Efficiency Currency Act because passage would bring efficiencies to the private sector as well as to Government. This commonsense approach to modernizing our currency is not an original idea. In fact, the United States is the only major industrialized country that does not have high denomination coins. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both a copy of the Efficient Currency Act of 1997 and a summary of its contents be entered into the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today Senator Moseley-Braun and I are introducing the Efficient Currency Act of 1997. The bill calls for a newly designated, golden-colored $1 coin to replace the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin. The argument for a $1 coin is simple: it saves money. According to estimates of the General Accounting Office and the Federal Reserve, replacing the $1 bill with a coin saves the Government $2.28 billion during the first 5 years it circulates. As we consider plans to balance the budget and eliminate Government waste, I believe that carrying a $1 coin along with $2 bills is a relatively painless option compared to the alternatives of raising taxes or cutting important programs. A public opinion poll conducted in May 1997 reveals that 58 percent of the American public favors replacing the $1 bill with a coin when informed that such a change would save the Government $456 million annually. I want to stress that the Efficiency Currency Act of 1997 does not call for a phase out of the $1 bill until 1 billion $1 coins authorized under this legislation are in circulation. If the public rejects the new coin, the phase-out will not occur. Unless this legislation is approved in the near future, the U.S. Mint will begin the process of minting more of the unpopular Susan B. Anthony coins by 1999. The supply of Anthony coins in Government inventories fell by a total of 137 million coins in 1995 and 1996. Only 146 million remains as of May 30. The inventory has been falling at the rate of about 5 million per month, because Anthony dollars are used at hundreds of vending locations, by more than a dozen major transit systems, and by the U.S. Postal Service. Contrary to reports by opponents of the dollar coin, the U.S. Postal Service has no plans to discontinue the use of the Anthony dollar in their self-service operations. The timeframe for a decision by Congress is short, because the U.S. Mint has stated that it needs 30 months to design and fabricate a new $1 coin. I think one of the most compelling reasons to replace a $1 bill with a $1 coin is the cost savings. First, the Treasury Department will save money. A $1 coin lasts about 30 years while costing about 8 cents. A $1 bill is significantly more expensive, as it lasts only 1 year and 1 month at a cost of 4 cents per bill. Second, the private sector will save money. A $1 coin is easier to process than a $1 bill. Paper money received on buses must be hand- straightened at a cost of over $20 per 1,000, or about 2 cents for each dollar. Coins can be processed for less than one-tenth of the cost. The change to a $1 coin is estimated to save the mass transit industry $124 million annually. Furthermore, vending operators could avoid placing dollar bill acceptors, which cost between $300 and $400 each, on each vending machine. The additional cost of these machines eventually must be passed on to customers. In addition, bill acceptors frequently do not work and are more expensive to maintain than coin mechanisms. Another benefit is that many consumers will actually have less, not more, change in their pocket. Instead of having to use 4, 8, or 12 quarters to pay for mass transit, parking meters, phone calls, and car washes, they will use dollar coins weighing a fraction the weight of many quarters. The visually impaired support the introduction of a $1 coin because the $1 bill can be confused with bills of higher denominations. A useable $2 coin will permit them to complete small transactions without ever having to use paper money. This legislation is called the Efficiency Currency Act because passage would bring efficiencies to the private sector as well as to Government. This commonsense approach to modernizing our currency is not an original idea. In fact, the United States is the only major industrialized country that does not have high denomination coins. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both a copy of the Efficient Currency Act of 1997 and a summary of its contents be entered into the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I would like to speak a little bit tonight about taxes and the big controversy over tax cuts--and not only over tax cuts themselves but who qualifies for these tax cuts--what is fair, what is not fair. And really the basic bottom line is there is not enough money in the pot for the tax cuts that Americans need. Madam President, as negotiators from the House and Senate meet with administration officials to hammer out a tax package, I rise today to be the voice for the millions of Americans who no longer seem to be heard here in Washington: the Nation's hard-working, overtaxed, middle- class families. And I want to ask my colleagues, is there no shame in Washington? Madam President, I read the comments made by the minority leader this morning, arguing that the $77 billion tax cut bill ``is not fair.'' I have to say that I agree with the Senator from South Dakota. Any bill that cuts taxes by just $77 billion is not only unfair--it's an outrage. Let me remind my colleagues what happened in 1993. In 1993, after campaigning on middle-class tax relief, President Clinton turned around and raised taxes on working Americans by $263 billion--making his the largest tax increase in the history of this Nation. Everybody paid more, including: $114.8 billion in new income taxes, $24 billion in additional gas taxes, $34.9 billion in business taxes, $29 billion in payroll taxes, and $24.6 billion in new Social Security taxes. In other words, if you worked, were retired, drove a car, owned a business, or paid income taxes, you paid for the President's 1993 tax increase. Although it was billed as nothing more than a tax increase only on the rich, but using this funny calculation called FEI--or family economic income--the President was able to say only those who worked were rich and, therefore, needed to pay more in taxes. So today President Clinton--again, the same President who in 1993 raised taxes on the American people by $263 billion, and also, by the way, Madam President, vetoed two Republican bills to cut taxes for Americans--now considers himself to be a champion of the middle class because he now wants to cut taxes by a measly $77 billion, and only allowing the majority of those tax reductions if Americans--this is like your children--if Americans, the people who get up every day, go to work to earn this money, now, if they only will do what they are told. And that is to ``be seen, not heard.'' That seems to be the philosophy that we use out of Washington today. And, what is worse, both the House and the Senate are ready to go along with it. Again, the question has to be: Is there no shame in Washington? It doesn't take a math wizard to calculate that if the taxpayers had their taxes hiked by $263 billion 4 years ago, and will only get back $77 billion in so-called ``tax relief'' under the plan being crafted as we speak--the American taxpayers are still $186 billion in the hole to the Federal Government in new taxes in just the last 4 years. And the men and women--the working families who have paid dearly for that tax increase every day since--are supposed to thank Congress and the President for this mere pittance of a tax cut? Is there no shame in Washington? Madam President, since the last meaningful tax cuts were signed into law by President Reagan in 1981, Washington has raised taxes on 10 occasions--10 different times tax increases have been imposed on Americans, and always with the caveat if we can only raise taxes again one more time we are going to be able to get our budget under control. Every time the Washington politicians have wanted to spend more money, so they could brag to the folks back home, Look what I did for you. But I need to raise your taxes in order for you to pat me on the back for all those projects that I am going to do for you back home. But they have raised taxes on working families 10 times. They have done that. You hear this complaint on the floor many times, ``Oh, that tax cut that we had back in 1981 led to all these deficits that we have today.'' If you put that in real technical economic terms, you could say that is a bunch of hooey. It has not raised the deficit. It has been Congress not controlling the spending that has raised the deficit. The $77 billion now slated for tax relief amounts to barely one-tenth of the amount that taxes were raised in the great tax hikes of 1990 and 1993. You know, this little tax cut that we are talking about--$77 billion over 5 years in a $7-plus trillion annual economy in this country--this little tax cut would actually be like a car dealer taking one penny off the price of a new car and bragging to the buyer that, Boy, I am giving you a great deal. That is what Congress is doing. They are saying, We are going to knock a penny off the price of this new car for you, and you had better come out to Washington and thank us for allowing you to keep some of the money that you have worked for. With a track record like that, I am afraid the Congress and the President have a long way to go before they can claim true victory on behalf of the American taxpayer. Again, they said that the 1981 tax cut led to all of these deficits. If that was the problem, wouldn't you think that the 10 tax increases over the last 16 years would have solved that problem? No. No, that hasn't done it. I have seen enough of the way Washington works to know that if we eliminated the tax cuts from this budget entirely--if we could take the advice of some on the floor here and say, We don't need any tax cuts at all, we can't afford any tax cuts, we have to save this $77 billion, we can't let Americans keep any more of the money they make--that $77 billion would never be dedicated to deficit reduction. The politicians would spend it faster than you can say reelection, and they would spend it on more Government programs and more pork. It certainly would not go toward reducing the deficit and giving our children and grandchildren a debt-free future. If you want evidence, you can just ask yourself: What happened to that $225 billion that was miraculously found just before the budget deal was put together a couple of months ago? It all went to spending. Nothing went to tax relief. Nothing went to deficit reduction. So to say that if we could give up this tax package now of tax relief that somehow it would go to deficit reduction, the record doesn't show that. I guarantee you that the more we allow Washington to keep, the more Washington will spend. And that is what makes the entire debate over what is fair and what is equitable in this tax relief package so ridiculous. Washington is not willing to give up dollars, and it is not willing to give up the power that those dollars represent to the taxpayers. Therefore, a $77 billion tax cut will never be fair, and it will never be equitable because the pie can never be cut into enough pieces to give a fair slice to everyone. The pie is just simply too small. And once it is divvied up, working families will be left with little more than crumbs. Clearly, Madam President, there is no shame in Washington. It is absurd to expect the American taxpayers to fall on their knees to Washington in thanks for a tax relief plan that offers them dollars that were rightfully theirs to begin with. Again, giving $10 and getting $1 back I do not think is fair. It is not equity. If my colleagues want to talk about tax fairness, we can do it. Let us repeal the 1993 tax increase on our senior citizens--$24.6 billion. If my colleagues want to talk about tax fairness, repeal the 1993 tax increase on motorists--that is $25 billion. If my colleagues want to talk about tax fairness, repeal the 1993 tax increase on working families. If we could do even a part of that, only then will this Congress and this President have the credibility to discuss meaningful tax relief for America's working families. Until then, Madam President, it has been just a lot of empty talk. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, in wrapping up the debate this morning, I want to, again, say that I believe the controls we have in place are working. We are taking a step backward if we approve the Cochran-Durbin amendment. The rest of the world is moving forward very fast. Anybody who has bought a computer in the last 2 years knows that technology has already passed them, and they have to look at a new system. But between the 2,000 and the 7,000 MTOPS level, computers are going to become so commonplace that any commercial industry or any office in this country will be able to buy them next year. These are well intended controls but, again, as I say, placed on the wrong levels. These are not supercomputers. These are not computers that countries would be looking for military end use. These are computers that are more for business and office use. I believe that putting any kind of restrictions or recontrolling these would be a step backward in our efforts to provide jobs and assistance. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I yield another minute to my colleague from California and coauthor of this amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to make one brief comment before I ask to yield time to my colleague from New York. I want to say our friend and colleague from Mississippi has a well- intended amendment, but it is aimed at the wrong level. These are not supercomputers, as they continue to try to say. These are midlevel computers. If you are talking supercomputer, a low-end supercomputer starts at 20,000 MTOPS and goes now to 650,000, and next year it will be over a million; so these are not supercomputers. Mr. President, I now would like to yield up to 7 minutes to my friend from New York.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for that excellent statement, and I appreciate her support on this amendment as well. Mr. President, I would like to now yield time to the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] for whatever time he may consume.

Mr. GRAMS. I yield time to my colleague from California who is also a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I understand that there is a lot of concern in this body about United States computer sales being diverted for military use to either China or Russia. None of us wants that to occur. But we have to consider whether the Cochran amendment solves the problem. I believe that it does not. The Cochran amendment would require export licenses for all midlevel computers. Now, these are not supercomputers, these are not high-end computers. You are going to hear that term, but they are not supercomputers. These are midlevel computers, and they are shipped to China, Russia, Israel, and 47 other countries. We talk about the Third Tier countries. They involve 51 nations, like Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Romania, and the Baltic States. Some of our future NATO Allies could also be involved. Mr. President, export licenses do not solve end-user problems. These are diversions that would not have been caught during the export license procedure. Export licenses do require end-user certification, but if the end user chooses to ignore the agreement, or if the computer is stolen, that possibility will not be evident in the licensing process. In my judgment, the current system works. Just yesterday, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen sent us a letter opposing the Cochran amendment. He said the current law and system can deal with unauthorized exports and diversions. This is from the department that has been very conservative on all export decontrol matters. Secretary Cohen further states that we should focus our controls on technology that can make a national security difference, not that which is widely available around the world and is obsolete. Yes, Mr. President, there have been three diversions, but that was out of 1,400 sales. But, no, this is not the right way to address those problems. The right way is to force the administration to publish as many military end users as possible and then to work with the industry to identify all military end users. We have been able to identify diversions through our capable intelligence sources. Mr. President, there is no evidence that there are dozens of computers out there used by military end users. It is just not there. Further, I don't believe that the industry irresponsibly ignores available information about military end users. They have too much at stake. A company which violates export control laws takes a very big risk. The penalties are prohibition of all exports for 20 years or more, 10 years in prison, and up to a $5,000 fine for each violation. This doesn't include the blemish that would remain on the company's reputation or the great difficulty that company would have in the future seeking an export license. No company, Mr. President, can afford that risk. What we would be doing here this morning is handing this midlevel computer business over to the Japanese and other allies. Now, again, I want to emphasize that these are midlevel computers, they are not supercomputers. Next year, they will be the kind of systems that we will be able to have in our offices here in the Senate, or what you could find in a small company or in a doctor's office. These are not the computers that are sought after for nuclear weapons production or design. Again, we are looking at midlevel computers, between 2,000 and 7,000 MTOPS, which are widely available around the world. Supercomputers, which are sought after for weapons design, start at the 20,000 MTOPS level and go all the way up to 650,000 this year, and they will go beyond the 1 million MTOPS level next year. By the way, China already produces a computer at 13,000 MTOPS. No other country considers these computers to be anything but generally available and will step in to take over the business that the Cochran amendment will hand to them. The question is, is that what we want? Also, anyone can purchase upgrades, by the way, to raise a PC, a current PC, above the 2,000 MTOPS level. We can't control the box. We can't control the chips around the world that can be put in it. We can't control the upgrades. There is no way to control these low-level PC's under the 2,000 MTOPS threshold, again, since they are available in nearly every country in the world. Further, the chips that make up these computers are also available and produced around the world. They were decontrolled during the Bush administration. Our chip producers have markets throughout the world, and they need to maintain them to remain competitive. Chip producers cannot control who receives their end product. Also, how do you prohibit a foreign national from using a computer even above the 7,000 level here in the United States and taking the results back, or faxing it back? Our friend Jack Kemp has written to us also this week stating that the Cochran amendment would ``establish a policy that is destined to fail and would hurt American computer manufacturers without protecting our national security. The American high-technology sector is critical to the future of this country and must be protected from overly intrusive Government restrictions.'' I wish there was something we could do to effectively control some of these exports, but it is just not possible at these lower levels. We cannot convince our allies to reverse 2 years of their own decontrol. In fact, Europe has tabled a decontrol proposal at 10,000 MTOPS, which proves that they have no intention of even respecting our 7,000 level. We cannot pull all the PC's and upgrades off the retail shelves, and we cannot close our borders to prevent all foreign nationals from entering this country and using our computers. We must concentrate our resources on keeping computers above the 7,000 level from reaching military end users; that's for sure. But I fear that an increased license burden in the administration would steer resources away from efforts to locate diversions and investigate them. Now, Mr. President, in an earlier statement, I also countered a claim that an export license requirement would not slow down these computer sales. I have heard that someone made the comment that an export license would take 10 days. Well, anyone who knows how the licensing process works knows that it can take many, many months to obtain one. This will only earn our industry a reputation as an unreliable supplier, and it will cost us sales and it will cost us many, many U.S. jobs. The administration admits that a computer license application averages 107 days to reach a decision. I have seen it take far longer. Even 107 days, by the way, is enough to convince the end user to go out and seek a buyer in another country. Since so many of the Tier 3 countries are emerging markets, we need to be in there early to maintain a foothold for future sales. When we hear about the 6.3 percent of sales to Tier 3 countries, that is misleading. It is in an area where the market is expanding rapidly. If we leave our companies out of those markets, they will not be there to compete in the future. They will not be there to provide sales and jobs for the United States. Another argument I have heard is that there is no foreign availability over 3,500 MTOPS. Well, last year, NEC of Japan tried to sell a supercomputer to the United States Government at a level between 30,000 and 50,000 MTOPS. They match our speeds all the way to the top. Mr. President, I believe that all of us are proud of our computer industry, that our industry remains the state of the art in so many areas, particularly in the levels above 7,000. We have made progress to facilitate exports without compromising our national security, progress which began back in the Reagan and Bush administrations, but here is an effort today to reverse all of that progress. Our industry has to survive on exports, and it has to pursue commercial business with these 50 countries to remain competitive. All computer sales over the 7,000 MTOPS level do require license now. We have not sold any computers above that level. And, again, the 7,000 MTOPS are not supercomputers--they are not--they are midlevel computers. We have not sold any computers above that level to Tier 3 countries; nor do our allies, to my knowledge. However, we should not restrict the sales of these midlevel and, again, generally available computers to commercial end users. We should simply maintain the current licensing requirement for the questionable end users. I firmly believe that there will be improved cooperation between the Government and industry on end-user information, particularly those for Russia and China. Now, I also commend the Commerce Department for starting to publish information on end users and to examine all sales that are made to the Tier 3 countries within these computer speeds. The Grams-Boxer amendment requests the GAO to determine whether these sales affect our national security. That is very important. It will look into the issue of foreign availability. It will also require the publication of a military end-user list, and it requires Commerce to improve its assistance to the industry on identifying those military end users. There will be some that vote today solely to express their dissatisfaction with China's alleged military sales to our adversaries. Let me remind you once again that there is no evidence that U.S. computers were involved in any of those cases. I also urge you to look at the merits of this issue. Pure and simple, the Cochran amendment would hand the sales of midlevel computers over to the Japanese and the Europeans at the expense of an industry that we have sought to protect and to promote and an industry that we are proud of. As chairman of the International Finance Subcommittee of Banking, the committee that has jurisdiction over this issue, I strongly, this morning, urge my colleagues to vote for my substitute and let us continue this debate in the normal manner, through committee consideration. At the same time, the administration should step up its efforts to express to the Chinese and the Russians our grave concerns regarding efforts to divert commercial sales to military end users without knowledge of the United States seller. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Mississippi to address these diversions. I want to work with him in my role as chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction to ensure that the current system does work or on how we can improve it once we have better information regarding the extent of the problem. I urge the support of my colleagues for the Grams-Boxer substitute as a compromise to this very, very controversial issue. Thank you very much. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to continue the debate this morning on the Grams-Boxer amendment to the Cochran-Durbin amendment. I urge my colleagues today to support what I believe is a very reasonable compromise to a very controversial issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators D'Amato, Bond, Gregg, and Feinstein be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Washington has undergone a remarkable transformation since the people of Minnesota first sent me here in 1993. Back then, no one was talking about tax relief. Certainly no one was talking about family tax relief. And with both the White House and Congress under Democratic control, the chances were slim that we would ever have an opportunity to give working Americans the tax relief they so desperately need. My good friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson, and I were freshman Members of the House in 1993 when we came together to develop a budget proposal that could serve as the taxpayers' alternative to the higher taxes and bigger government plan offered by President Clinton. The key component of our legislation at that time was family tax relief, and that was through the $500-per-child tax credit. We were able to convince the House and the Senate leadership to make our families-first bill--with the $500-per-child tax credit as its centerpiece--the Republican budget alternative back in 1994. That November it became known as the crown jewel of the Contract With America. The Washington crowd was finally beginning to listen to the people and to talk about tax relief. In 1995, the $500-per-child tax credit seemed certain to finally be passed into law, with a Republican congressional majority and a President who had campaigned at that time on family tax relief. Unfortunately, however, it never made it past the President's desk. In 1996, the voters again asked us to enact the taxpayers' agenda, but this time they wanted Congress and the President to come together to complete the work that we started in the 104th Congress. So this May, both President Clinton and the congressional leadership agreed on a number of tax-cutting measures built around the $500-per-child tax credit. The House and Senate passed them in a reconciliation package just before the Fourth of July recess. Mr. President, working families need tax relief today more than ever, and Minnesotans have asked me to make it a top priority because taxes dominate the family budget. In fact, a survey just released in Minnesota last week showed that the main concern of Minnesota families was taxes. Now, you factor in State and local taxes and also those hidden taxes that result from the high cost of Government regulation, and a family today gives up more than 50 percent--50 percent--of its annual income to the Government. So all we are saying is let us allow the working people of this Nation to keep a little bit more of their own money in their pockets. It is hard to believe that there are some who say we are offering too much in the way of tax relief in our Senate budget plan, and that is just plain wrong. Working families are not getting nearly the amount of tax relief we promised them. Over the next 5 years, as we know, the Federal Government will take in about $8.7 trillion in taxes from the American people. What we are asking in this bill is just that 1 cent of every dollar the Government plans to take from the taxpayer be left in their hands. That is what the $500-per-child tax credit and other tax cuts are all about, and that is making sure that a penny earned by working Americans would be a penny kept. Unfortunately, by imposing severe restrictions on who can receive it, the $500-per-child tax credit proposal passed by the Senate falls still well short of delivering meaningful tax relief to working families that are trying to raise children. The $500-per-child tax credit that I introduced originally says families are eligible for the credit as long as their children are under the age of 18. The bill passed by the Senate, however, cuts the tax credit once a child reaches the age of 13. If your children are between the ages of 13 and 16, the Senate bill says we will give you a tax credit but only if you spend it the way Washington thinks it should be spent. In this case, it would have to be spent on education. I applaud the parents who take the $500-per-child tax credit and dedicate it to their child's college education fund, but that is a decision that belongs with parents, not with Washington. It is not our place to tell families what they can and what they cannot do with their own money. Some may elect to spend that $500 on braces for their child or groceries or maybe health insurance, and that is fine because it is their money. An unrestricted $500-per-child tax credit takes the power out of the hands of Washington's big spenders, and it would put it back where it could do the most good, and that is with families. The second unreasonable restriction in the Senate bill was to deny the child tax credit to families with children at the age of 17. According to the Agriculture Department, this age group is the most expensive one in the typical middle-income household, and it makes no sense to cut off the tax relief just when working families need it most. The hard-working families of Minnesota and the Nation have been waiting far too long since Congress last cut their taxes--16 years ago. And we have yet to prove to them that we understand and, more importantly, we appreciate the hardships they face every day. I know we cannot increase the level of tax relief we are offering in the fiscal 1998 budget, but I urge my colleagues, the conferees, to take whatever steps they can to repair the $500-per-child tax credit so that it benefits the maximum number of Americans. This debate will be revisited many times in the months ahead and the years ahead, and I look forward to working again with my fellow Senators to finally deliver on the tax relief promise that we made to the people. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the amendment offered by Senator Abraham. After all, if the revenues do increase, it is going to come because of the hard work of the American people. While spending levels on Federal programs have already been set, it only makes sense, if the revenues increase, they should go either to tax relief to those hard-working American families or to deficit reduction. They should not go to enlarge the size of Government. The era of big Government is far from over. This amendment would help protect future taxpayers.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Roth for the great leadership he has demonstrated in bringing this legislation before us. And I commend Senator Gramm for this amendment tonight. My good friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Tim Hutchinson, and I were freshman Members of the House in 1993 when we came together with Senator Coats of Indiana to develop a budget proposal called Family First that could serve as the taxpayer's alternative to the higher taxes and bigger Government plan offered by President Clinton. The key component of our legislation was family tax relief through a $500 per child tax credit. We convinced the House and Senate leadership to make our Families First bill--with the $500 per child tax credit as its centerpiece--the Republican budget alternative in 1994. For overtaxed American families, 1997 looks to be the year this long- promised, long-overdue middle-class tax relief is finally delivered. As you know, working families today need tax relief more than ever. Factor in State and local taxes and the hidden taxes that result from the high cost of Government regulations, and a family today gives up more than 50 percent of its annual income to the Government. So all we are saying is let us let the working people of this Nation keep a little bit more of their own money. The $500 per child tax credit proposal in the bill before us goes a long way toward delivering tax relief to working families raising children. However, it imposes restrictions that will significantly dilute the purpose of the child tax credit. The legislation before us tells families that, yes, we will give you a tax credit, but if your children are between the ages of 13 and 16, you are going to have to spend it the way Washington thinks it should be spent. In this case, it would have to be spent on education. By mandating how the tax credit must be spent, we are in effect denying it to teenagers, leaving 11 million children out in the cold. And if your child is 17 or 18, you do not get it at all. Mr. President, I applaud the parents that take the $500 per child tax credit and dedicate it to an IRA or their child's college education. But that is a decision that belongs with parents, not with Washington. It is not our place to tell families how they can spend their money. The family tax relief provisions in the bill before us can be greatly improved by striking the mandate that the tax credit be dedicated to education. I am pleased to be joining my colleagues in offering this amendment to give that choice back to families. And I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of some very important Medicare reforms made within the reconciliation package before us. Specifically, I am pleased the committee included reforms to the formula used to determine the reimbursement rate for health plans under the Medicare Program to make it fairer and more equitable for States like Minnesota and other parts of rural America, changes to ensure better access to emergency medical services, and an expansion of Medical Savings Accounts. Reform of the Adjusted Average Per Capita Cost formula has been needed for years because the formula has discriminated against seniors who choose to live and retire in rural communities. It has penalized States like Minnesota which are efficient in delivering health care services, and in doing so, discouraged quality health care. Since being elected to the Senate in 1994, I have made restoring fairness and equity to Medicare recipients in Minnesota and other parts of rural America a top priority. Mr. President, we are all aware of the fact that the current Medicare reimbursement formula discriminates against Minnesota by giving our State the second-lowest payment rates in the Nation. Not one county in the entire State of Minnesota, or in 15 other States, receives the national average of $467 in AAPCC payment per month. Because of these low reimbursement rates, managed care organizations have been discouraged from offering our senior citizens many of the alternative health plans available in other parts of the country, plans which offer additional benefits such as eyeglasses and prescription drugs. Clearly, this is a problem which should have been addressed long ago. In February, several of my colleagues and I introduced S. 359, the Medicare Payment Equity Act, which would have established a floor of 80 percent of the national adjusted capitation rate for the year and made the AAPCC formula more equitable by blending the national and county specific percentage. More recently, I cosponsored S. 862, authored by Senator Grassley, which followed the same lines of reform and even more closely resembles what was ultimately passed by the Finance Committee. Under the leadership of Finance Chairman Roth and through the tireless efforts of Senators Thomas, Burns, Grassley, and Roberts, we have succeeded in beginning to fix the Medicare formula to make it fairer for Minnesota's seniors and right some of the wrongs against us. The AAPCC reforms contained in the reconciliation bill are a very important step in restoring fairness and providing greater choices for Medicare recipients who live in Minnesota, particularly in rural communities. This truly represents a great victory for Minnesota's senior citizens as we close the longstanding gap of inequity in the Medicare Program. Mr. President, this legislation also addresses another important issue in which I have been deeply involved. In January, Senator Graham of Florida and I introduced S. 238, the Emergency Medical Services Efficiency Act, to establish a reasonable standard for determining Medicare reimbursement for EMS services. Our bill would ensure that EMS providers would be reimbursed based upon a prudent layperson standard, rather than the ultimate diagnosis of a physician. This revised definition will ensure that EMS providers are prepared to meet the challenges facing them as they work to improve their services. All of us depend daily on the readiness, efficiency, and immediate response of our emergency medical system. And while many of us take it for granted, we all want it to work well when we need it. Many of the men and women who risk their lives delivering emergency care have told me the system can be improved, yet their desire to improve the services they provide has rarely been recognized by Congress. This provision in the reconciliation bill is the first step in helping EMS providers help themselves become more efficient. I would like to thank Senator Graham for his efforts in the Finance Committee to see that this important issue was included in the package. Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Roth for his efforts to include an expansion of Medical Savings Accounts. In developing a Medicare Choice Program modeled on the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan, this will offer, for the first time, a real choice to America's seniors. Again, I commend and thank Chairman Roth and his Finance Committee colleagues for including these important changes in the reconciliation spending package.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, when Congress and the President reached agreement on the broad outlines of plan to balance the Federal budget, I had hoped that I could stand before the Senate during debate on the reconciliation legislation and proudly announce my full support. It is with deep regret, Mr. President, that I cannot. After careful examination of S. 947, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, I have come to the conclusion that this legislation is good for Washington but bad for the taxpayers, and because it is not in the best interests of the working Americans we represent, I must reluctantly oppose it. Here are the major grounds on which I base my decision. As I have said in previous statements before this Chamber, I have made the pursuit of a balanced budget my top priority in Congress, and have always said that I would support a budget plan that meets three specific criteria: First, it must shrink the size and scope of Government and return money--and the power those dollars represent--to the taxpayers; second, it must balance the budget by the year 2002 with steadily declining deficits each year without the use of rosy economic scenarios; and third, it must provide meaningful, broad-based tax relief to working families. Tax relief, of course, will be dealt with in the other half of the reconciliation package. While there are many good provisions included in the bill, this so-call spending reduction legislation still fails to meet those pro-taxpayer standards. First and foremost, like the budget agreement on which this reconciliation legislation is based, this bill does not shrink Government and return power to the taxpayers. In fact, it does the opposite; it increases mandatory spending. In the next 5 years, total mandatory spending would increase from $825 billion in 1997 to $1.1 trillion in 2002, a growth of 32 percent. Over the next five years, Medicare will increase at a rate of 6.1 percent and Medicaid will increase nearly 7 percent each year from the inflated baseline. Instead of eliminating wasteful spending to reduce the Federal deficit, this budget plan actually creates numerous new programs, including $34 billion in new entitlement programs funded by the taxpayers' hard- earned dollars. In doing so, the plan has erased all of the savings achieved in last year's landmark welfare reform legislation. The reconciliation legislation includes about $24 billion in spending for new children's health care initiatives, while adding back $14.2 billion in welfare benefits for legal aliens and food stamp recipients. Under this legislation, the Federal Government will spend $1.2 trillion on welfare alone over the next 5 years. That is $15 billion higher than the CBO projected. Of every dollar collected by the IRS, 14 cents goes to welfare programs, with less than 1 cent dedicated to tax relief for working families. The fundamental flaw of the bill and the major source of my opposition to it is the new entitlement programs it creates. Such spending is a serious mistake at a time when we should control the explosive growth of mandatory spending and reduce the size of the Federal Government. History tells us that earlier entitlement programs started small, with perhaps the best of intentions, but have since exploded and now consume about 70 percent of all Federal revenues. To my disappointment, Washington has still not learned its lesson. Second, Mr. President, despite some positive changes, including structure changes in Medicare, the entitlement programs remain intact. This not only breaks our promise to the American people on fundamental entitlement restructuring, but also ensures that big Government lives on by allowing Washington to avoid the hard choices it must make to address our long-term fiscal imbalances. Without fundamental changes, the imbalance between the Government's entitlement promises and the funds it will have available to pay for them will eventually shatter our economy. In its recent report, ``Long- Term Budgetary Pressures and Policy Options,'' the Congressional Budget Office warns us that if these long-term budgetary pressures are not relieved, Federal budget deficits would mount and could seriously erode future economic growth. The Federal deficit would increase from 1.4 percent of GDP, or $107 billion today to 30 percent of GDP in 2035, nearly $11 trillion. The debt held by the public would increase from 50 percent of GDP, or $3.9 trillion in 1996 to 250 percent of GDP, $91 trillion in 2035. Such rapid growth of the Federal debt and deficit will bankrupt this great Nation. This gloomy picture has been confirmed by the recently released report of the Social Security and Medicare boards of trustees. Without clear changes in public policy to address the financial imbalance, the hospital insurance fund, one of the Medicare trust funds, will be bankrupt in just 4 years. The Medicare trust fund will run a deficit of $13 billion this year. By 2001, it will run a deficit of $49 billion and go broke. The disability insurance trust fund will be bankrupt in 2015, and Social Security trust funds will be bankrupt in 2029. And we do not have any clear and agreed public policy to address this imbalance. Although the proponents of the legislation claim that it will avert the crisis of Medicare bankruptcy until 2007, the fix is temporary and is no more than tinkering with the system. Accounting gimmicks are also applied to extend the life of Medicare. It shifts home health care from part A to part B and use the general account to cover the deficits of the trust fund. This means a surge of new spending in Medicare in the future that taxpayers will be obligated to fund. Third, unlike the Balanced Budget Act produced by the Republican Congress in 1996, this Balanced Budget Act does not result in steadily declining deficits, because the savings are achieved not through honest accounting but through rosy economic scenarios. Although this legislation claims over $117 billion savings in Medicare and $8 billion in Medicaid, all of the spending cuts result from a baseline projection of Government spending in which programs are assumed to grow according to such factors as the rate of inflation, population growth, and formulas written into the law. Any honest budget plan must reach balance through steadily declining deficits every year; in other words, the deficit must be lower each year than the preceding one. This 5-year budget agreement actually increases the deficit for the first 2 years, then projects enough of a reduction in the final 2 years to reach balance. The deficit under this budget will go up by $23 billion next year, from $67 billion this year to $90 billion, and remain as high as $90 billion in 1999. Over 70 percent of the deficit reduction will not occur until after President Clinton leaves the White House. A significant percentage of the plan's deficit reduction results from optimistic economic assumptions, not sound policy changes. A budget plan must also be based on real numbers and not the inflated budget estimates that have been used in the past to justify more spending and higher taxes. This budget agreement fails on that score as well by continuing to use the inflated budget estimates of the past to mask the spending increases it contains. I cannot support a budget that uses such gimmicks simply to make the numbers add up on paper. In its analysis of the budget, the Heritage Foundation concluded that ``a credible plan to balance the Federal budget must result in a smaller Government that costs less and leaves much more money in the pockets of working Americans. The current reconciliation bill not only fails these important tests, but in many cases would implement policies that are worse than taking no action at all.'' Our current sound economic growth has reduced the budget deficit to a 17-year low without any fiscal constrains and reforms. We should use this historic opportunity to balance the budget in less than 5 years, start to pay back our $5.4 trillion national debt, and address our long-term fiscal imbalances. Unfortunately, we have once again missed this opportunity. Mr. President, under the legislation before us, Washington will spend more of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars creating new entitlement programs, while expanding old programs just to please the big-spending politicians and the special interest groups they feed. That is not the budget the taxpayers of Minnesota are expecting. That is not the budget Congress owes America's working families. But that is the budget Washington claims is the right answer. I regret that I do not agree, and cannot therefore support the spending portion of the budget reconciliation legislation. amendment no. 445

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I rise this morning to strongly oppose the amendment by my colleague and friend from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, first for jurisdictional reasons, and most importantly because it is a seriously, I believe, flawed policy. As chairman of the International Finance Subcommittee of the Senate Banking Committee, I object to the consideration of this matter, since it is within the jurisdiction of my subcommittee and the Committee on Banking. This is a very controversial issue and it should be heard and debated in the normal congressional process, by the proper committee of jurisdiction, not by a floor amendment with little opportunity for opponents to be heard. Many Members of this body may have already returned to their States and will not even have the opportunity to listen to the debate today. The Senate has not had an opportunity to have a full debate on export controls in the last few years. Members need the benefit of time to fully analyze changes in an area that can have such a negative impact on U.S. companies and on U.S. jobs. What really concerns me, Madam President, is that this amendment turns back the clock on technology. This amendment indicates it is directed at supercomputers, but computers at the 2,000-7,000 MTOPS level are not supercomputers, a point I will discuss later. The amendment reverses 2 years of effort to decontrol computers that are generally available. You will hear all sorts of talk today about how this amendment improves national security. But it does not. If the goal is to stop the sale of high performance computers to questionable end users in Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel, it will stop the sale of United States computers to those end users--but it will not stop our allies from making those sales. It is true that there are two companies currently under investigation for alleged sale without license to a questionable end user. Those investigations are still pending and should be pursued, so it seems premature to, in effect, have the Congress find them guilty. Let us let the process work. If they are guilty, they will be penalized. The U.S. companies selling computers abroad at this level are few; they are reputable and they do care about selling to questionable end users. The investigations have also had a positive effect in that they have encouraged companies to seek more validated licenses for uncertain end users. I disagree with my colleagues who believe businesses care only about the almighty dollar, and not national security. This amendment will bring us back to the cold war days when export controls were required for computers sold in drug stores. A computer at 2,000 MTOPS, which is the level we would control, is a low-end work station which is widely available all over the world. We would establish unilateral controls on any computer over this capability. Our companies would have to obtain a validated license. Their competitors in other nations would not have that requirement. Therefore, European and Japanese companies would have a competitive edge in many, many computer sales in countries where it is important to establish a foothold as a reliable supplier to facilitate future sales. Licenses would be required for every sale above this limit, not just those to questionable end users. We want to expand markets in those countries, while protecting our national security interests, rather than handing them on a silver platter to our trading partners who will then be seen as reliable suppliers in the future. I know the argument will be that it is not hard to get an export license and that there are statutory deadlines on agency review of license applications. I can give you quite a list of companies--many of them smaller companies--which have come close to shutting down due to export license delays, even in recent years. We cannot return to this uncertainty and bureaucratic maze. Even the larger companies will see their expenses increase as they will have to hire more high-priced attorneys to facilitate many of the licenses through the process. Export licenses to these countries do not get approved in a couple of months. Many of them take many months and earn the U.S. the designation as an unreliable supplier. While we are pursuing regulatory reform in many areas, what we are doing here is reimposing regulations we eliminated 2 years ago. What is curious to me is an independent study commissioned in 1995 for the Departments of Commerce and Defense which determined that computers could be decontrolled to the 7,000 MTOPS level without a negative impact on national security. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, the intelligence agencies, and ACDA all signed off on this report, and the decontrol was made at that time to 7,000 MTOPS. The determination was made because the 2,000-7,000 range, again, Madam President, was widely available throughout the world. But you have also heard that we are stopping the sale of supercomputers to tier 3 countries without a license. Again. Madam President, a 7,000 MTOPS computer is not a supercomputer. Supercomputers still need export licenses. I am told that the MTOPS for a supercomputer is in the 20,000 range and can go up to one million MTOPS--a far cry from 7,000. Let's look at the level the amendment seeks to control--2,000 MTOPS. This is a low-level work station computer. By 1998, personal computers will reach this level. Also, the alpha chip available next year will be 1,000 MTOPS itself. So just two of those in a computer would qualify the computer for an export license. It is very difficult for me to justify that companies will have to jump through so many hoops just to sell fairly low-level computers. We are truly turning back the clock on technology. I have previously made the point that we are stabbing ourselves in the foot, since computer companies in other countries do not have these controls, and therefore our efforts are futile to say the least. There are four European companies which sell computers in the 2,000-7,000 range as well as Japanese companies. We all know that they will be eager to make these sales. What is really ironic is that the Chinese themselves have now produced a computer at the 13,000 MTOPS level. They have surpassed the 7,000 current limit the sponsor of this amendment is trying to roll back. One argument I have heard is that Japan also requires validated licenses for its sales. Yes, that is true, but Japan's validated license system has always been a rubber stamp operation. The entire process takes 24 hours, if that. Ours can take months. And I can show you some unhappy constituents who can verify that. Another question I have is whether it is good policy to codify export controls at certain levels rather than leaving them to regulation. Do we really want to be in a position to have to change the law each time we need to decontrol? Is the Congress really able to act as quickly and as often as needed to adjust to rapidly changing technology? I think not. Madam President, I plan to send a second degree amendment to the amendment by my colleague from Mississippi and in a moment will ask for its immediate consideration. But I again want to mention that this amendment would request the GAO to perform a study of the national security risks that would be involved with sales of computers in the 2,000-7,000 MTOPS range to military or nuclear end users in tier 3 countries. It would also analyze the foreign availability issue to determine whether controls at 2,000 MTOPS and above would make any sense. Further, the amendment would require the Department of Commerce to publish in the Federal Register a list of end users which would require the filing of a validated license application, except when there is an administration finding that such publication would jeopardize sources and methods. Madam President, this is a sincere compromise in my position as subcommittee chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over this issue, which will help us decide whether there is a need to recontrol at the 2,000 level. It is far too controversial to decide this question today, or by next Tuesday when we will vote. I believe Commerce should be asked to publish this list and to further seek ways to work with computer companies to determine whether other end users are questionable in order to alleviate some of the uncertainty that is out there. Madam President, let us not turn back the clock on technology. Let us make a rational national security decision that also take into account the best interests of our exporters--and the jobs that they represent. Amendment No. 422 To Amendment No. 420 (Purpose: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the availability and potential risks relating to the sale of certain computers)

Mr. GRAMS. So, Madam President, I send my second-degree amendment to the desk, and ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to say I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran. We hope to be able to work with him over the weekend and hope to come to an agreement and compromise with him by next week. Like he said, hopefully we can vote on this at that time. I yield the floor.