Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I ask the Chair, am I allowed to go ahead and offer my sense-of-the-Senate amendment?

Mr. GRAMS. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. We have posed the question of what has happened and what can be done, and their response has been by 83.9 percent to reopen Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. GRAMS. No, Mr. President, it is not. The only response that the Park Service is taking is something they believe is their grandstand, and that is to say, what kind of park do you want? They are not opening their web page. They are not opening their comment period to any individual to voice their opinion, only to comment on the Park Service opinion. Now, I do not think that is very democratic. I do not think that is an open process. In other words, I think the decision has been made on their part and they are going to drive it no matter what it takes. They are not asking people whether it should be opened or reopened. They are just saying, well, we are going to do this and what color do you want it. I do not think that is fair either. All we are asking is to give this some open air. Let the people decide. Have some public input. In fact, that is the way the process should have worked. And the only reason people allowed the street to be closed to begin with without raising an uproar is because it was posed to them as a temporary closure of Pennsylvania Avenue in the wake of Oklahoma City, and then they were going to determine what would be the best course of action in the future. Well, there have been no talks. There has been no discussion, no public hearings or anything. So I am not trying to say that the Secret Service is not well intended, and they are taking this job of theirs very seriously. But again, they have used the same arguments for the last 35 years and not one President in that period of time has taken those arguments and said, yes, I need this additional security to protect myself. I think they provide adequate security for the President. I think they have done a great job. I think right now this President decided that he would listen to the arguments, and that is fine--on a temporary basis. But we should have an opportunity, before it is permanently closed and before this is done, for the people to have a chance to make that decision. Again, the decision to close it a year ago might have been prudent, on a temporary basis, until we could stand back, look at it, look at the alternatives to see how we can, first and foremost, keep the avenue open and then provide absolute security. Closing Pennsylvania Avenue is not going to remove 100 percent of the risks. This is a democracy. We have risks every day. And there are many, many other opportunities. This is a President who likes to jog up and down The Mall. He wants to be near the public. I do not know why closing Pennsylvania Avenue is the only alternative. So I urge my colleagues when they come to the floor to at least consider that. Give democracy a chance to work a little bit. Get some input and have hearings. And I think if you listened to the hearings that were held in the House just last week, all the comments that were made, the vast, vast majority of the people who were there supported reopening Pennsylvania Avenue. Now, you might say, well, it does not matter much here, and the people in Nevada might not care, but I would pose it, in my city of Minneapolis-St. Paul, if we would close one of our major streets such as Hennepin Avenue, what would that do to the downtown. I think you would have a lot of complaints. And in Las Vegas, if you closed off the strip because of possible dangers to some of the people there, I do not think you would be able to go for a couple minutes without hearing an outcry from the businesses and public in general. So to impose this on a main street, America's main street, and a vital artery in one of the major cities in the world and to say it will have no impact, I do not think is logical. Again, I urge my colleagues when they come to the floor to take that into consideration, and I hope they vote to override the motion to table and give us a chance to have a vote on this. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wanted to concur with what the Senator from Virginia said. Without objection, we are willing to accept the second-degree amendment of the Senator from Nevada. We would like to go ahead with a voice vote on that. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. That is correct.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment I offered earlier, amendment No. 4052.

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, we have come together--Republicans and Democrats, without regard to party affiliation and without any political agenda--to ask the President to reverse a decision that has had widespread, unintended consequences. In the Capital City of a nation built ``of the people, by the people, and for the people,'' there is no room for fear, roadblocks, or barricades. The American people agree, and I am heartened by their support. By mail and through the Internet, hundreds of them have urged me to continue this campaign to restore Pennsylvania Avenue to its historic use. I wish I could share each of their messages with you. I want to tell you, though, I have heard from military experts who tell me the present closure would do nothing to blunt a terrorist attack, former-- even current--White House employees who are ashamed of what Pennsylvania Avenue has become, long-time residents and more recent transplants to the District, and Americans from every corner of the country. They have said it many different ways, but their message is the same and that is: give us back Pennsylvania Avenue. This month, two former residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue joined in the national discussion by speaking out against the closing. President Gerald Ford said, quote, ``There ought to be a better solution.'' President Jimmy Carter labeled it, quote, ``unnecessary and a mistake.'' There is one letter I keep coming back to, a letter that sums up more eloquently than any other the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue because it was written by a man who lived alongside the fear of terrorism for 444 days, yet still refuses to bow to it. He urged me to continue my efforts, and sent me a copy of a letter he had printed in the Washington Post just days after the avenue's closure. It reads: ``By closing Pennsylvania Avenue, we have succumbed to the atmosphere of fear that terrorists--domestic and foreign--seek to foster among us.'' If there is any American who should fear the power of a terrorist, it is Minnesota native Bruce Laingen, the senior diplomat among the U.S. Embassy employees held hostage in Tehran beginning in 1979. If Bruce Laingen is not willing to give in to terrorism, then neither should we. Mr. President, through almost 200 years of this Nation's colorful history, Pennsylvania Avenue survived, through assassinations, civil and world wars, political unrest, and events that have often led us to question what it means to live in a free society where risks are an inescapable part of our everyday life. The transformation of Pennsylvania Avenue from a national symbol of freedom into a testament to terrorism is something average Americans tell me they cannot understand. It is time to reopen Pennsylvania Avenue, for our visitors, our business community, our commuters, our residents--for every American who celebrates freedom and will defend it at all costs. Kings live in castles, protected by moats. Dictators hide themselves away in the safety of bunkers. Presidents live alongside busy streets like Pennsylvania Avenue, close to the people who give them their strength. I ask my colleagues to support the Pennsylvania Avenue amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. I have to apologize to the Senator from Nevada, I could not hear him very well.

Mr. GRAMS. I wanted to remind the Senator from Nevada, last year I did make that recommendation, talking about removing barriers as well around the Senate office buildings that have been enclosed at the same time as Pennsylvania Avenue, so I would have no objection to so move and make those modifications to this amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee amendment be laid aside.

Mr. GRAMS. I expect to take 10 minutes, and it relates to the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the legislation we debate today sets out the broad defense policy for the Nation. It affords us an opportunity to outline our defense priorities, and the opportunity to reflect on what role this Nation is to play in the defense of freedom worldwide. What I have come to the floor to address today is the defense of freedom within our own borders, indeed, right here in the heart of our Nation's Capital. I rise, along with Senator Robb, my colleague from Virginia, to offer an amendment seeking the reopening of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. Mr. President, the two-block section of Pennsylvania Avenue fronting the White House was closed to vehicular traffic on May 20, 1995, by order of the President. I have been to the floor several times in the year since to voice my concerns that the loss of this historic roadway--which travels across one of the busiest sections of one of the busiest cities in the world-- has had a devastating impact on the District of Columbia. I have talked about the damage the closing has done to Washington's business community. There are well-founded concerns that it is scaring off new jobs and prompting potential retail and commercial tenants to stay away from the downtown area. I have discussed the hardships caused by the closing for District residents, and anyone whose paycheck depends on access to the avenue, people like cab drivers and tour bus operators. I have outlined the numerous problems the closing has created for the District itself, which had one of its major crosstown arteries unilaterally severed by the Federal Government without any consultation. At a time when this troubled city could least afford another blow, this has hit especially hard. I have discussed the inconvenience for the 15 million tourists who come to Washington each year, especially the elderly and disabled, many of whom are being deprived of a close look at the White House. And I have talked about the cost for the taxpayers, which has already reached into the millions of dollars, and, if the National Park Service prevails, could rise by at least $40 million more. Mr. President, I have raised each of those aspects of the closing because each is important. But there is another side to this issue that is easy to overlook amid all the other more obvious problems: the question of what the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue says to the American people, and what we give up as a free society when we give in to fear. Generations of visitors to Washington would hardly recognize the stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue that has stood for nearly 200 years as America's Main Street. Today, it is a vacant lot, empty of any traffic. Gone is the thrill for visitors of driving by the White House for the first time--the concrete barricades have put an end to that. Gone, too, is the sense of openness that inspired Americans to feel close to the Presidency and close to their Government when they visited the Executive Mansion. And 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has become a Federal fortress, and the effect is unnerving. In a city that boasts of such inspiring symbols of freedom as the marble of the Lincoln Memorial, the columns and porticos of the White House, the massive stones that lift the Washington Monument into the sky, and the great dome of the U.S. Capitol itself, the gray, concrete barricades of Pennsylvania Avenue are a national embarrassment. How do we explain the blockades to our visitors, whose first glimpse of the home of their President is marred by the sight of a White House seemingly under siege? What do we say when those visitors are children, who have been taught how this Nation has fought for freedom and values it above all else, and yet find a different message along the now-empty stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue? Mr. President, I must make this clear: in each conversation I have had about the future of Pennsylvania Avenue, everyone has been emphatic that the safety of the President must be our primary concern. So it is--without question. And because the need to ensure the safety and security of the President of the United States is paramount, there was little argument when Pennsylvania Avenue was closed in the weeks immediately following the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City. At the insistence of the Secret Service, temporary restrictions on Pennsylvania Avenue seemed prudent, and because it was a temporary move, people went along. But months passed, and then a year, and now, the National Park Service is moving ahead with plans to forever close ``America's Main Street'' to traffic in front of the White House. Because they are thorough and efficient and utterly dedicated to protecting the President, the Secret Service can't be blamed for pushing for the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue. They have been trying for 30 years to shut it down, beginning with the Kennedy administration and every President since. They have long seen Pennsylvania Avenue as a threat, and used Oklahoma City as the justification to move ahead with a plan they have been eager to put in place for more than three decades. If the Secret Service had its way, we would build a protective bubble around the President from which he'd never emerge. But that is not what being President is all about, especially when you are an outgoing, gregarious leader like President Clinton, who exposes himself to danger a thousand times a day inside and outside Washington, because he thrives on the public contact that comes with being President. Keep this President away from the people? Well, you would have better luck keeping Cal Ripkin away from the ballpark. And that is the way it should be. That is what people need their President to be. We cannot eliminate every risk, Mr. President, because that is the nature of a democracy. When we resort to the temptation to try, we start down a slippery slope. Turning these two blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue into a $40 million park will not hide the fact that we're wrapping the White House in another layer of protection and further insulating our leaders from the public. Mr. President, an entire year has come and gone since the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue, and the circumstances have changed with time. A decision that seemed prudent a year ago now demands to be reexamined, and the sense-of-the-Senate amendment I introduce today offers us that opportunity. It simply calls on the President to direct the Secret Service--working alongside the Treasury Department and the District government--to develop a plan for the permanent reopening of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. It puts this Senate on record as saying we are not a nation that cowers to terrorists. My amendment--based on Senate Resolution 254, which 46 of my Senate colleagues agreed to cosponsor when I introduced it as stand-alone legislation last month--enjoys widespread, bipartisan support here on Capitol Hill, throughout the District of Columbia, and among the American people themselves. I am proud to have Senator Robb join me as an original cosponsor. Many of his constituents deal every day with the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue. I am grateful our efforts have the added support of Congressmen Davis and Moran and Congresswoman Norton in the House, along with Senator Leahy, as well, here in the Senate, and that we have been joined by Mayor Barry, the D.C. Council, and more than two dozen of this city's most influential business, civic, and historic organizations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list of supporters, the original cosponsors of Senate Resolution 254, and a resolution of support passed by the D.C. Council be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment and the pending committee amendments be laid aside.

Mr. GRAMS. Because, again, this is the same situation we are in now. This decision was made arbitrarily by these individuals, and we feel there should have been an open process. In fact, there are laws on the books, I believe, that say before the Federal Government can permanently close any street in the District of Columbia, it has to have full consultation with the District and open hearings for the public. That was never done as well.

Mr. GRAMS. No.

Mr. GRAMS. No, I would not accept that as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I just want to take a couple minutes to talk a little bit about the pending vote coming up and that is on the question of Pennsylvania Avenue. I know and I agree with my colleague from Nevada that there are many, many important issues before the Senate and that we could debate them if we had the opportunity. Many of those issues have been brought to the floor, and we have never had the opportunity to debate those. But that does not take away from the question that we have at hand, or the issue that we are facing. I know there is a concern about whether there has been hearings held or whether we should wait for hearings. I should like to remind my colleague from Nevada and others that the House has already held an entire day of hearings, having witnesses from all sides of this issue. And what came out of those hearings already was an overwhelming support for this amendment, and that is just to ask the President to reopen Pennsylvania Avenue. Now, the committee chairman in the Senate has also said that he plans on holding hearings, and he has told me that this sense-of-the-Senate resolution is complementary to what he plans to do in holding these hearings. So this sense-of-the-Senate by no means is going to interfere with gathering more information and being able to listen to the public and get an idea of their feelings. By the way, we have a web page on the Worldwide Web asking the people from around the country. The Senator from Nevada says the people in Nevada are not that concerned about this, but they should be. On our Worldwide Web, over 3,100 people have contacted our web page in just over 2 weeks, and the overwhelming number, nearly 85 percent--this is people from around the country, not just the nearly 100 percent of the residents in this area--want this street reopened but for many reasons. The people around the country see the same concern, that you cannot put a wall around freedom; you cannot give in to the terrorists by erecting walls in front of the White House. Now, the question was raised about whether we should or not. I do not think alternatives have been fully explored. And we talk about closing off Pennsylvania Avenue, that it would eliminate some of the problems that have already happened, such as snipers and a plane crashing into the south lawn of the White House. Closing Pennsylvania Avenue would have done nothing to prevent that type of activity. When you talk about whose opinion is this, this is not only my opinion or the opinion of many others as well, but two former residents of the White House have come out in support of reopening Pennsylvania Avenue. Former President Jimmy Carter said closing the avenue was a mistake. Every President since John F. Kennedy has been given the same briefings by the Secret Service with their same reasoning for closing off Pennsylvania Avenue, to provide more protection to the President, but each one of those Presidents--John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush-- has said no, after hearing those same briefings from the same Secret Service with those same reasons. They have all said not on my watch, we are not closing what Thomas Jefferson called America's Main Street. Now, this is not Tiananmen Square. Is not Red Square. We cannot wait for the Park Service to put in $40 million worth of mall before we make some kind of a decision, or at least ask the President to reconsider. Are we going to spend $40 million, are we going to allow the Park Service to railroad this through, to impose this edict as they have not only on the District of Columbia but the entire country as well and we are going to stand back and say, well, go ahead, spend $40 million and make a park out of this and then what, tear it up? There are a lot of things that are done when you have a bureaucracy with a right hand that does not know what the left hand is doing. I just think this is not out of order. I think this is complementary to the process that is going forward, that we should at least ask the President and the Secret Service and the Treasury to open hearings on this to the public. Let the public voice their concerns. They have not done that. The only comments they are taking now are, what kind of park do you want? That is not a very good alternative.

Mr. GRAMS. Yes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I just wanted to add a few words to what my colleagues have been talking about here this afternoon--about leadership that I believe the American people have been calling for, leadership in areas such as a balanced budget, leadership of Federal spending reforming our welfare system, and, yet, leadership in providing tax relief to America's hard working families. That is what people think about leadership on these type of issues. They usually first think of the President because he naturally, after all, is our chief executive officer of the country; the person who delivers the State of the Union Address every year; the one required by law to begin the budget process by submitting that proposal to Congress. The President is elected to lead. But that is not what President Clinton has done over the last 3\1/2\ years. Instead of leading the Nation he has been more of one that is following in the footsteps of Congress. Whatever we do the President now especially in this campaign year is saying ``me, too'' as we have noted in other things. But his proposals in comparison with ours are really just pale examples of what needs to be done. We talk about welfare reform. He says ``me, too.'' But he does not provide adequate reform that we need to save and provide for that system of Medicare. We say we need to save Medicare. He says ``me, too'' but does not provide the basic reform and changes in the Medicare system to ensure that it is going to be here for the seniors who rely on it today and for the generations to come. Few issues symbolize the me-too response better than what has happened to tax relief. This President in 1992 as candidate Bill Clinton for President campaigned on the issue of tax relief for American families. In fact, then even called for tax relief as high as $1,000 per child tax credit. He said American families need tax relief. But what did the President do after the election? Did he come to Congress? Did he come with a budget that said, ``Now I am going to do what I promised to do, and that is to provide tax relief in some form to America's families?'' No. He did not. In fact, in 1993 the President proposed and this Congress passed--again without one Republican vote because we did not want to add to the tax burden of the American families--a $265 billion tax increase; not tax relief for families, but tax increases. Of course, we are going to hear the rhetoric all the time that it was targeted for the rich so they can pay their fair share. If that is true, why is the average tax burden on Americans today at all levels higher than it was just 3 years ago? Why is tax freedom day now on May 7 and not May 1 as it was 3 years ago? It is because the average American in this country is paying more taxes today than at any time in history. Our tax levels are higher today than at any time in history for average Americans--not just for a few but for all Americans. This flies in the face of what President Clinton said just 3\1/2\ years ago in 1992 that he was going to provide tax relief. In 1993 while a Member of the House I introduced a budget called families first, and among the budget proposals included was tax relief, and specifically $500 per child in that tax relief package, half of what the President had talked about but as much as we can get a consensus on. We thought that was important. But when it reached the White House as part of our budget plan last year what did the President do? The President vetoed that. The President did not carry through on his promise of providing tax relief as I said, in fact he added more taxes to the average American family's debt. In doing so, I was hoping that we could win the President back over by providing for and including this tax cut in our budget. For nearly 3 years we have been fighting that. As I said, the President has vetoed every attempt that we have made. So the President keeps saying--and we will hear it on the floor here as well, again as I mentioned--that this is just tax relief for the rich. I do not know where that comes from. When average American families in this country--in my State of Minnesota alone $500 million a year for average families could stay in their pockets rather than being sent to Washington. You will hear a lot of those--``Well, Washington speaks, and we can't afford here in Washington to give this type of tax relief.'' Well, the question is: Whose money is it? It is not Washington being able to afford to give tax relief. The question should be: Should American families be able to keep more of the money that they worked hard for every day? How much can we allow them to keep? That should be the question rather than saying, ``How much is this going to cost Washington?'' The President though in his me-too efforts says, ``Well, I do want to give tax relief now.'' This is an election year. But now he is saying in his latest budget, ``Yes. I want to give tax relief. Me, too. I want to give a family tax credit, $500 per child. Me, too.'' But what is the President's proposal? It is not $500, and it is not for all children. It starts out as a $300 tax break for children, and it is phased in over 5 years. But at the end of 5 years it dies again. So he gives it and takes it away. Is it for all children? No. It is for children up to the age of and including the age of 12. So it is not for the same type of a tax relief that we have offered across the board of $500 per child tax credit. So, in other words, when it comes to $500 and the tax credit, the President has said ``me, too'' but only for a few years, not for children over the age of 13, and I guess not for real. So today, still 4 years after that promise was made, 3 years after we began the fight of offering tax credit and tax relief for American families, taxpayers still find themselves now caught between the rhetoric and reality. We have tried. We have included tax relief in our budgets. The President has vetoed it. So when Bill Clinton took office in 1993 we said then the taxes were too high, we believed Government was too big, and that spending was out of control. Nearly 3\1/2\ half years into the Clinton Presidency, and despite all the efforts that we have made, taxes are still higher than they were 3 years ago, Government is bigger than it was 3 years ago, and spending. Well, I think you get the message. Spending has increased over the last 3 years. The bottom line is this cannot continue. We cannot give up on our efforts to return to the American people their hard-earned tax dollars. If the President is not willing to exercise the responsibilities of leadership handed to him by the voters, then we must. We are going to continue our efforts when it comes to carrying out the taxpayers' agenda. Their demand for a balanced budget, less Government spending, and tax relief is what we are going to continue to work for. We cannot afford to simply sit back and say, ``Me, too,'' like the President has done. We have to say we can and we will do this. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a man who, for 20 some years, while in the broadcast news industry, I used for sound bites and sources of information. I have now had the pleasure, over the last 2 years, to work with him in the Senate and am now able to call him a friend. Bob Dole's name alone stirs up many images among the American people. Bob Dole--war hero, Congressman, Senator, party chairman, majority leader, Presidential candidate. Yet, when I think of Bob Dole, other words come to mind: midwesterner, mentor, colleague, and most of all, friend. I'm sure that all of us in this Chamber feel the same way, and today, we honor Bob Dole, our leader, our distinguished colleague from Kansas, our friend. As Bob leaves Washington to return home back to the heartland of our great Nation, I wanted to share some of my thoughts about this man whose life story and distinguished career reflects the very values we cherish most as Americans. Bob was born and raised in Russell, KS--living the small town American life about which legends are made. His family was not wealthy; in fact, during the Depression, the Doles, like many families, had to put together just to make ends meet, moving into the basement of their home in order to rent out the rest of their house. As a young man, Bob worked as a popular soda jerk at a local drug store, learning early on the lessons of hard work, fiscal responsibility and the value of a hard-earned dollar. Growing up in Kansas taught Bob the importance of patriotism and sacrifice. It's not surprising that at the age of 19, Bob answered the call to serve his country by joining the Army to fight in World War II. And by now, everyone should be familiar with the story of Bob crawling out of his foxhole during heavy shelling in the hills of Italy to save a wounded colleague, only to be hit by Nazi machinegun fire. There are some for whom love of country and self-sacrifice are just phrases--words to be used for a holiday speech. For Bob Dole, it is the standard under which he has led his life--a badge of honor he wears even today. The 3 years and nine operations it took for Bob to rehabilitate required strength and perseverance, a burden too great for some to carry. But Bob Dole was never one to give up--not even under the most difficult of circumstances. His determination to recover and get back on his feet was backed up by the now-legendary support of his friends, family and community, when the people of Russell passed around a cigar box to raise the $1,800 needed to pay Bob's medical bills. Bob has never forgotten their generosity. He still keeps that cigar box, the receipts and the love and support they represent in his office, and recalling those days still overwhelms him with heartfelt emotion. Upon recovering from his war injuries, Bob wanted to give something back to his community--he chose public service. Since receiving his law degree in 1952, public service has been exactly what Bob Dole's life has been about. Public service has led him all the way to the U.S. Senate, and now, the White House. The character traits that Bob Dole learned since his humble beginnings in small town America have been reflected in his everyday work as a Senator. Bob has consistently worked for a Government that serves the people but is a accountable to the taxpayers who pay for it, and a society that is based on people helping people without creating a permanent dependency on Government. These principles have been apparent in his efforts to balance the Federal budget, return hard-earned tax dollars to the middle class, overhaul the welfare system, and preserve programs like Medicare for generations to come. I am proud to say that I had the opportunity to stand at Bob Dole's side during these debates, to have worked with him in making our Nation a better place for our children and grandchildren. But Bob has been more than just a colleague--he's been my friend. When I campaigned for my seat in the Senate, Bob came into Minnesota five times. As a fellow Midwesterner, Bob knows my State, its people, and our heritage. Minnesotans like Bob Dole; he is one of us. Bob's friendship extends beyond the 1994 campaign. Shortly after arriving in the Senate, I got caught up in one of last year's biggest fights over national policy: whether or not to include tax cuts in the budget. I promised the people of Minnesota that I would not support a budget that did not include tax relief for the middle class. Bob understood my pledge, and though he could not, as Senate majority leader, take public sides on the debate, he privately encouraged me to stick to my guns, telling me not to give way on my principles. Sure enough, when the final budget came out, tax cuts were included, thanks in no small part to Bob Dole's support. On May 15, I had the opportunity to join many of my colleagues in standing with Bob again as he announced his resignation from the Senate. Like many of those who heard the speech, I was moved by his words, particularly when he said to the American people: ``I will stand before you without office or authority, a private citizen, a Kansan, an American, just a man.'' I thought to myself about this man--a man who has served his Nation in times of war and peace with honor and integrity, who carries through when he gives his word, who has sacrificed so much of himself for the country he loves so dearly. Bob is not a man who learned his political philosophy from a book, but instead, developed it as the result of his life experiences, from the people whose lives he has touched and whose lives touch him, and the commonsense wisdom one can only expect from a son of the Midwest. It is with this wisdom and the good feelings of all of us who have known and grown to respect Bob that he closes this chapter of his incredible life story, only to open a new one--full of the promises and hope that have marked his life. And while I am saddened to see him go, I am comforted by the fact that the Senate's loss is the American people's gain. I look forward to traveling with Bob across this great country, a country he has served with distinction throughout his life, and introducing to the American people, a man I am honored to call my friend, Bob Dole.