Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, under the leadership of a Congress committed to fundamental reform of the Federal Government, we have once again delivered a balanced budget to the American people. I have no doubt that this budget is a blueprint that will protect the future of every American child. Last year, Mr. President, the debate on the budget was mainly focused on whether we should have a balanced budget by 2002. Today, all sides, including President Clinton, have agreed that we should and can balance our budget by 2002, while we provide tax relief to middle-class American families. The remaining question is how. In my view, our budget priorities should reflect traditional American values: a smaller government, less spending and more savings, and helping those who want to help themselves. Mr. President, I must say that this budget resolution moves us confidently in that direction. The budget resolution will balance our budget in 6 years, yielding a $5 billion surplus in 2002. It will also create more jobs, provide more affordable education, make Medicare more secure, and offer real welfare and Medicaid reform. Mr. President, I am particularly pleased that this resolution has kept our promise to the American people to provide meaningful tax relief for middle-class Americans. The resolution explicitly recommends that this should include a tax credit of $500 per child. I am proud that this provision, which I have made a priority since my election to Congress, remains at the heart of our efforts to balance the budget while reducing the tax burden on working families. The tax burden has become increasingly unbearable for middle-class Americans. This year, the average American worked from January 1 until May 7 to pay his or her tax bill. Only after paying the Government more than one-third of their earnings can the taxpayers then spend to meet their own needs. If we do not impose discipline in our budget, children born today would have to pay as high as 84 percent of their lifetime earnings for our Government spending and national debt. This is simply outrageous. We must provide tax relief for middle-class families to reduce their financial burden, and encourage saving and investment. It is my belief, Mr. President, that the $500-per-child tax credit is essential. Cutting taxes creates more real spending power for Americans. It would allow more than 201,000 families in my home State of Minnesota with 437,000 children to save or spend more of their own money--money that should not have been taken from them in the first place. The $500 per-child tax credit would return $297 million to the taxpayers of Minnesota, $45 million to the taxpayers of South Dakota, $39 million to the taxpayers of North Dakota, $329 million to the taxpayers of Wisconsin, and $180 million to the taxpayers of Iowa. Mr. President, we not only need to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary spending, but we also must reform and control our entitlement programs. Without responsible reforms, entitlement spending will consume all Federal spending in 2015, leaving nothing for education, environment, defense, and other domestic discretionary programs. I am therefore pleased, Mr. President, that this budget resolution has included my amendment on long-term trends in budget estimates. In the past, budget estimates were projected for only 5 years. My amendment requires both CBO and OMB to provide a 30-year projection of the budget impact on entitlements. This is good policy and will help Congress and the American taxpayer understand the long-term commitments were are imposing on future generations. My amendment also requires the President to include long-term economic projections in his budget. Entitlement programs can then be reviewed and analyzed for their economic impact today and for generations to come. Mr. President, although I personally would prefer more cuts in Federal spending and more tax relief for working American families, this budget resolution is a well-balanced one. While it reduces Federal spending by $580 billion over 6 years, it has kept vital programs such as law enforcement and crime prevention, education, veterans' benefits, R&D, and environmental protection as national priorities. In my view, this budget resolution is a credible, workable and no-gimmicks plan for getting our fiscal house in order. If we want to rebuild the financial integrity of this Nation, avert the Nation from fiscal disaster, and leave our children a viable government, we must pass this balanced budget to control government spending and reduce the burden for our children. Mr. President, I believe strongly that it is the responsibility and duty of this Congress to ensure our children and grandchildren a strong economy, a good education, a clean environment, and a debt-free future. Let us fulfill that responsibility and pass the balanced budget resolution conference report.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, it is easy to campaign as a champion of the middle class. As you know, President Clinton did it in 1992, when he made the middle-class tax cut the centerpiece of his campaign. His very first television commercial that year featured the candidate looking directly into the camera and telling the voters that they deserve a change. ``That is why I have offered a plan to get the economy moving again, starting with a middle-class tax cut,'' he said. Of course, we all know what happened to that tax cut a year later. The candidate who pinned his campaign to the hopes and dreams of the middle class became the President who let the middle class down once he moved into the Oval Office. His campaign promise of a tax cut was transformed into a $270 billion tax increase--the largest tax increase in American history. It was change, all right--but certainly not the kind of change the people had asked for or were promised. Everyone who drives a motor vehicle knows what the President's 4.3- cent-per-gallon tax increase has done to their annual gasoline bills-- especially recently, with gas prices around the Nation at such high levels. By boosting the cost of gasoline by nearly $5 billion every year, the gas tax has been particularly damaging for truckers, farmers, and anyone who lives in rural areas of the country. Senior citizens, even those making as little as $24,000 a year, saw their taxes rise as well once the President's 1993 tax bill increased the taxable portion of their Social Security benefits by 70 percent. For the more than 80 percent of small business owners who file their income taxes as individuals, President Clinton's 1993 tax increase forced them to pay taxes at a rate as high as 44.5 percent. That is significantly above the corporate rate of 35 percent, and means the folks who run the local plumbing business or TV repair shops are paying taxes at a higher rate than Microsoft or General Motors. Families, job providers, retirees, motorists--all of us felt the pinch when the President signed his 1993 tax bill into law. Since President Clinton's election, the Government is taking more from the paychecks of middle-class Americans than it ever has before. The administration and the Democrats in Congress who voted for it and passed it say, but it was only targeted at the rich. But, today, the typical American family faces a total tax burden of 38 percent. In human costs, this means we taxpayers are turning more money over to the Government than we are spending for our family's food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined. Tax freedom day--the day the American taxpayers are no longer working just to satisfy Uncle Sam and can begin keeping our dollars for ourselves and our families--has jumped ahead an entire week since President Clinton took office. The various budget plans the President has submitted to Congress over the last year and a half paint a very different picture of priorities. The priorities for which Bob Dole and our Congressional majority have repeatedly fought have been to protect families from the unreasonable demands of an unregulated Federal Government. The priorities of the President and the Democratic leadership have always been to protect the status-quo government, and too often, at the family's expense. In his State of the Union Address in January, President Clinton boldly declared that ``the era of big Government is over.'' ``Big Government'' presumably meant the high taxes that have squeezed the middle class--the gigantic bureaucracy that has made redtape synonymous with Washington inefficiency, and the wasteful spending that has drained the taxpayers of their precious dollars. But big Government remained alive and well in the budget the President submitted for fiscal year 1997. That budget was nothing more than the status quo the current administration continues to defend. It did not rein in the big spending that has generated our massive deficit and put our children and grandchildren on the line for decades of our financial mismanagement. It called for $60 billion in tax increases over the next 7 years. And where are the tax cuts the President has repeatedly promised American families? He offered nothing but token tax relief. His child tax credit began at just $300 per child, was slowly ratcheted up to $500, and then eliminated just 2 years later. By the way, teenagers were too old to qualify for that tax break. Under the guidance of President Clinton and the Senate Democratic leadership, my colleagues across the aisle attempted to break the 1993 tax increase record when the President's budget came before this body in May. Had they prevailed, the amendments they offered during debate over the budget resolution, combined with the President's own tax mandates, would have amounted to another tax increase of $295 billion, dwarfing the $270 billion increase of 1993. Fortunately, the gentleman from Kansas has heard the demands of the American people in calling for fiscal restraint and relief from a crushing Federal tax burden, and under his leadership, we stood with the taxpayers in rejecting those attempts to further increase taxes on working-class families. If the majority leader's balanced budget plan, with its $245 billion in tax relief, had been signed into law instead of stopped with a Presidential veto last December, April 15 would have been very different for the millions of Americans who dread the annual arrival of tax day. Let me describe the tax day that could have been under the Republican balanced budget plan. A family sits down at the kitchen table to tackle their Federal tax return, but it is not with the sense of foreboding they usually feel this time of year. They have heard that when Congress and the President enacted a balanced budget, they created changes in the tax laws that are making a dramatic difference for middle-class families like theirs. Because both parents have jobs--let us say one owns their own small business and the other works part time at a local hospital--the first decision they have always had to make in the past was whether to file jointly or as individuals. Back then, filing as a family always came at a cost because of a glitch in the tax code called the marriage penalty. Because the marriage penalty required joint filers to pay higher taxes than if they had filed separate returns, it seemed as though the Government was discouraging family life, instead of trying to nurture it. But no longer, because they notice immediately under the balanced budget bill that Republicans passed, sent to the President and which he vetoed, they notice that under that plan the marriage penalty has been eliminated, meaning families are no longer unfairly penalized through higher taxes. That is the tax day I fought for. That is the tax day every Republican supported. That is hypothetically again under a tax date that could have been. As this family works through the form, they discover several other ways in which the Federal Government has rewritten the tax code to help bring families together and keep them strong. They are the proud parents of three children, the youngest of whom they adopted just last spring. To help defray the enormous costs a family can incur during the adoption process, the new laws allow them take a tax deduction of up to $5,000 for adoption expenses. By reaching out to families willing to make room for a child without a home, this new tax policy makes sense, they decide. To keep their family together, the young couple decided several years ago to move an elderly parent into their home and care for them there. They count themselves fortunate that they have been able to keep three generations together under the same roof, but it has stretched the family budget at times. They are pleased to learn that Congress has recognized this by allowing them to subtract $1,000 from their total tax liability to help offset the cost of caring for an older relative. For families, the cost of health insurance and medical care can be overwhelming, and the challenges are even greater when they own a farm or a business. While most working people receive their insurance through their jobs, small business owners and farmers usually purchase their own. Our mythical taxpayer has been able to deduct 30 percent of the cost of the health insurance premiums in past years, but they discover today that under the tax bill, the Balanced Budget Act that the Republicans passed, sent to the President, but again he vetoed, under that bill, the new tax rules would have allowed them a 50-percent deduction for self-employed individuals. It is still not the full 100-percent deductibility that large employers enjoy, but think it is a good start. One unanticipated expense that recently came their way was the purchase of a new home. That required dipping into an IRA to help finance the downpayment, which used to mean a hefty tax penalty. No longer--families are now allowed to withdraw up to $10,000, penalty free, for first-time home purchases and certain other expenses. And by the way, the student loan that helped finance a college education is no longer the financial drain it used to be, now that the Federal Government is allowing taxpayers to deduct up to 20 percent of the interest--as much as $500--every year for 5 years. As they reach the end of the tax form, they discover the best news has been saved for last. After they have calculated their total tax liability, they then subtract a $500 tax credit for each of their three children. That is $1,500 of their own money that Washington is not going to take, which they can put toward meeting the needs of their family, not merely feeding the Federal bureaucracy. And best of all, this $500 per-child tax credit comes in addition to the $2,500 tax exemption for dependents. They sign their 1040 and seal it away in its envelope, pleased that Washington is finally enacting tax policies that are putting families first. That is the tax day Bob Dole delivered to the American people by passing the Balanced Budget Act. Unfortunately, because President Clinton has an entirely different view of tax day--and proved it with his veto pen--the April 15 I have described is nothing more than the tax day that could have been. While this administration went on the offensive against families by vetoing the $500 per-child tax credit, elimination of the marriage penalty, adoption and eldercare tax credits, and tax incentives designed to create jobs and boost salaries, Republicans, Bob Dole, and Newt Gingrich put this Congress on record as standing squarely alongside the working families of America. As long as taxes keep rising, the dollars Americans have left over to provide for their families will keep falling. And so it has been the Republicans' goal--the Dole-Gingrich goal--to help Americans earn more money and keep more of the money they earn, so they can do more for themselves, their kids, their communities, their churches. I look forward to having a President who will sign legislation which helps the hard-working middle-class taxpaying families of America. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to follow up on some of the comments that you were making.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am proud to be here today and to join with my freshman colleagues as we stand firmly together in our support for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Sixteen months in the Senate have not dulled our enthusiasm for its enactment. We are more committed today than ever before. Mr. President, it is a rare occasion in life when a person is granted a second chance, an opportunity to right a wrong. When those moments come along, we hope that we have learned from our mistakes and that when we are given that chance to approach things differently, we will step forward and do the right thing. My colleagues and I have an opportunity this week to do that right thing and repair a wrong made within this Chamber a year ago when we denied the American people, by a single vote, the balanced budget amendment that they have repeatedly called upon us to pass. The balanced budget amendment lies at the heart of what I believe to be the defining issue of the 104th Congress: deciding the priorities of the Federal Government and its budget. Naturally, there have been disagreements over where these priorities lay. Each of us have different ideas about how the Government should-- and, more importantly, should not--spend the taxpayers' money. But even with these disagreements, there are several basic principles on which we should all agree. The balanced budget amendment embodies these common areas of agreement because it deals with the future of our children and grandchildren, and, therefore, it deals with America's future. After all, that future is what our efforts to ensure a balanced budget are all about. In order for our children to enjoy the same economic security that we inherited from our parents, we must begin the process of controlling our Federal spending. Our parents and grandparents did not leave us a debt to pay--even after financing such major undertakings as World War II. They paid those bills and did not pass that debt on to us. But this generation has compiled a $5 trillion-plus debt that we are now going to be asking our children and grandchildren to pay, and we cannot even reach an agreement on balancing the budget so we do not continue to do that. With a balanced budget, then and only then, can we hope to pass on to our kids an inheritance of prosperity rather than a lasting legacy of debt. Right now, that future does not look so bright if we do not change our ways. This year, the national debt has surpassed the astounding figure of $5 trillion. It is increasing at an average of $650 million every day. Even today, we are spending more on our interest payments than we are spending to defend this Nation. By the way, as of 12 o'clock this afternoon, every child born in this country today already owes $19,357.86 as their share of the national debt. The moment they are born, they are $19,000-plus in debt. Over his or her lifetime, that child can expect to pay over $187,000 in taxes just to cover the interest on that debt. That is about $4,700 a year, or more than $400 a month that they are going to pay just to cover the interest on that debt. To meet its annual interest obligations, Congress has repeatedly raised the taxes of working Americans. As a result of an overwhelming burden of taxes, families now are having a tough time raising their children, paying their bills, and trying to make ends meet. The Congressional Budget Office projects that spending on mandatory expenses, such as interest on the debt, will exceed 70 percent of total Federal outlays by the year 2003--meaning that less than 30 cents of every tax dollar will be available for education, environmental protection, crime prevention, and highways. Is that the legacy that we want to leave to our children? For that reason, we should all agree that balancing the budget without raising taxes must be the foremost goal of this Congress. It is our responsibility and duty to ensure the American children of this generation and the next a strong economy, a good education, a clean environment, and a debt-free future, but also that they have the ability to have their own dollars in the future to continue the efforts and not just to pay interest again on this Congress' mistakes. A constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget is perhaps our best hope. There are those who question the need for an amendment requiring a budget that is balanced. After all, they argue, should a responsible Congress not be able to balance the budget without the need for a constitutional requirement? Yes, we certainly should. Congress should have the backbone to limit its spending and set priorities, just as every Main Street American family has to do. If a family in my State of Minnesota wants to buy a house, it works out a mortgage and a payment schedule that fits the family budget. Eventually, that debt is paid; it is not passed on to the next generation. That is what the vast majority of Americans do when they make a major purchase. But that is not how the Federal Government operates. It borrows the money, without any kind of schedule for paying it back, except to go and raise taxes, or borrow it in the name of our children, and that debt continues to build, and the payments keep being deferred. And the debt, again, is passed down to our kids. We often hear the argument of the need for borrowing and spending today to help our kids. Those short-term arguments will, in fact, in the long-term, harm the very people that those arguments say they want to protect. If that family in Minnesota decides it needs to tighten its belt, it does. Congress simply punches another notch or two in the leather. Congress simply does not have the backbone to restrain itself; it never has and maybe never will. Look at the facts. Congress has spent more than it has taken in for 55 of the last 64 years. We have not bothered to balance the budget since 1969. But for my colleagues who sometimes get lost in statistics, here is the reality of what our fiscal irresponsibility means to average Americans. Today, every family of four owes $3,500 on the interest on the national debt. That means $3,500 less to care for our kids, $3,500 less to keep our families fed and clothed. A balanced Federal budget would actually put those dollars back into the family budget. Economists have universally predicted the positive effects achieved with a balanced Federal budget. By the time 6 years have passed and the budget is brought into balance: GDP will grow by an additional $10.8 billion than it would under current law, interest rates will drop, and Americans will boost their spending power through an additional $32.1 billion in real disposable income. A decrease of just four-tenths of a percent in the mortgage rate would save the buyer of a $100,000 home some $10,000 over the life of a 30-year mortgage, and there are estimates that interest rates could fall a full 2 percentage points, which would create even greater savings. An additional 104,000 family homes would be built, and 600,000 more automobiles would be sold. That is good for the economy, that is good for jobs, and that is good for everyone. Job providers would be empowered to create new jobs and pay higher salaries for those jobs, as many as an additional 6.1 million new jobs, by some estimates. Makes the minimum wage increase look petty, does it not? So what does all this really mean on Main Street? Well, for an average American family with two kids, a mortgage payment, car and student loans, a couple of pets and lot of monthly bills, a balanced Federal budget would put nearly $1,800 a year back into the family bank account by the savings that we would reap from a balanced budget. Let people earn more, and then let them keep more of that money. There are those in this Congress on this Senate floor who say no, that Americans need to give Washington their money, and then come ``hat in hand'' begging for our compassion as Washington then sits in judgment of who gets what. And who are they going to take that money from to pass it out? Coupled with the $500-per-child tax credit that makes up the cornerstone of our balanced budget legislation, a typical family of four would reap a balanced budget bonus of $2,791 every year. Yes, the concept is simple enough, and those practical statistics should be all it takes to convince anyone of the need for a balanced budget. But our internal battles over the past year have demonstrated just how difficult it is to carry out such a seemingly simple idea. We have proven, more than ever before, the need for a balanced budget amendment. Through the commitment of this Congress to eliminating the deficit and erasing our debt without raising taxes on middle-class families, we were able to move $40 billion closer to a balanced budget last year by controlling the growth of government spending and rooting out a great deal of waste and inefficiency. But as each of my colleagues will remember, it was a battle that took every ounce of our energy. Because of the opposition of the President and my colleagues across the aisle to even these modest, sensible spending reductions, we endured 2 protracted Government shutdowns, 14 temporary spending measures to keep the Government from running out of money, 3 Presidential vetoes of our appropriations bills, and a final veto of our actual balanced budget legislation. At the end of the day, we had moved closer to a balanced budget. I am proud of our efforts. We must not stop working for a balanced budget amendment, however. Under the leadership of a Republican Congress, each and every person is dedicated to achieving a balanced budget by the year 2002. If this Congress could not force the big spenders in this body and the White House to mend their money-hungry ways and balance the budget through simple legislation--just as past Congresses could not do in 1964, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1985, 1987, and 1990--what chance do future Congresses have without the moral authority of the U.S. Constitution to back them up? The American people know it will never happen without a balanced budget amendment, and they are calling on us--overwhelmingly--to pass it. Again, if we pass this balanced budget amendment, all we are doing is going to give the States and the voters of those States the opportunity to say yes or no. We do not make that decision on this floor. We are saying we are going to give the American people the opportunity to say yes or no to a balanced budget. But there are some that do not believe the American people can make that decision. A Gallup Poll published just 2 weeks ago in USA Today showed that an astounding 83 percent of the American people support this amendment. It was the most popular item surveyed, and why should it not be? It makes perfect sense. In Minnesota last year, just days before the Senate voted on the balanced budget amendment, I was joined at the capitol in St. Paul by members of my State's House and Senate delegations, elected officials from both sides of the aisle who were less interested in party labels than ensuring America's economic security. On behalf of working families who cannot understand why Washington refuses to get its finances under control, on behalf of families who are terrified by the legacy of debt we are building for our children and grandchildren, we signed a petition urging Congress to immediately pass the balanced budget amendment and send it to the States for ratification. Together, we sent a strong, unqualified message to all Minnesota taxpayers that we heard their message and were no longer willing to accept business as usual from the Congress. Today, we are all a year older, a year wiser, and just as committed to our purpose as we were 1 year ago. Unlike the Federal Government, which has managed to amass a $5 trillion debt, Minnesota does not rack up debt year after year. Unlike the Federal Government, Minnesota does not spend beyond its means, building deficits that will take years to wipe away. Unlike the Federal Government, Minnesota does not promise the Moon, while mortgaging the stars in order to deliver. Why is it that Minnesota has succeeded where the Federal Government has failed? Why have 48 States abided by a balanced budget every year? Because the Minnesota State Constitution requires that we balance our budget, as do 48 other States. Not only does Minnesota and 48 other States have to balance their budgets, but families and individuals have to balance their budgets, too. Businesses that cannot balance their budgets soon find themselves out of business. The only place where a balanced budget is not the rule is in Washington. That is what we are here to change. As support for a balanced budget amendment grows among the public, the fear of what it will mean to those who have built their careers so recklessly spending the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars have intensified. As we move closer and closer to enacting this critical legislation, they see the writing on the wall, and frankly, they are scared, so scared, I have been told there may be colleagues of mine who would change a vote they made on behalf of this legislation a year ago to vote ``no'' this time around. Well, the public should be outraged that there are those to whom a piece of legislation so vital as the balanced budget amendment is nothing more than a game, and their vote nothing more than a political poker chip, to be traded at will when the stakes begin to rise. I would remind those colleagues of mine who speak out against this amendment that we would not be having this debate were it not for 30 years of deficit spending by this body. If we let the American public down again--as we did on March 2 of last year, when this Chamber turned back the balanced budget amendment--we will feel the anger of the people at the polls in November, and I believe they will speak with an even louder, more unified voice than they ever have before. As I conclude, I turn to the words of President Thomas Jefferson, a leader who understood the importance of economic freedom in a free society, and the dangers of imposing our fiscal burdens onto our children. He wrote: The question of whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, morally bound to pay them ourselves. Mr. President, those words are just as relevant today as they were when penned by Jefferson nearly 200 years ago, during the founding days of this Republic. For all our differences--in beliefs and purposes--we should all share the common goals of building a better economic future for the coming generations, and giving them the freedom to seek success unfettered by any constraints we may impose. As we debate the merits of the balanced budget amendment, let us not lose sight of that goal. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and to do it for the sake of our children and our grandchildren. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I also may proceed under the time set aside for Senator Thompson.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, there is a march toward democracy afoot in America today. That statement may seem surprising; after all, why would such a movement be needed? We Americans take pride in the fact that our Government is based on the pursuit of democracy--in the words of Abraham Lincoln, ``a government of the people, by the people and for the people.'' And that principle should have as much relevance today as it did when President Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address 130 years ago--but does it? In theory perhaps, but as a practical matter, it seems that the words of Lincoln have been steadily eroded by the recent surge in the size and power of the Federal Government. And with that growth in Washington has come the slow but unmistakable shift in power from the people to the government. Under a democracy, government is needed to establish and enforce the fundamental rules by which our society operates--with the express support of the people. It is there to protect the rights of individuals and to step in when those rights come into conflict--to resolve disputes between people, not to create them. But in recent years, the American people have been forced to watch Government expand its role in our daily lives through the use of laws, rules, and regulations--to the point of interference. Instead of receiving its power from the people, it has usurped that authority and as a result, abandoned any sense of public accountability. As a result, many people believe that they have lost control of their Government--indeed a growing number of us feel that the Government now controls us. There is no better example of this shift in power than in the Federal Government's management of our natural resources and public lands, particularly as it has affected the people of my home state in the controversy surrounding Voyageurs National Park. The Park, now comprising 218,000 acres in northern Minnesota, was created in 1971 and established as part of the National Park System in 1975 following years of contentious debate and public hearings. While a number of local residents supported the creation of the park, they did so after promises by the Federal Government of increased economic growth in the region; maintenance of the Park as a multiple recreational use facility, for recreational activities like snowmobiling; and the continued use of input from the public into the management of the park. But as the years passed, those promises fell by the wayside, leaving local residents out in the cold and understandably distrustful of government bureaucrats who have been unaccountable to the people they are supposed to serve and unresponsive to their needs. Instead of working for the people, the Federal Government has consistently ignored their concerns and in some cases, actually worked against them. For example, the people of northern Minnesota were promised that in exchange for giving up their rights to the land that would comprise the Park, they would receive opportunities to boost their local economy. In fact, upon creation of the Park, Federal officials estimated that it would host over 1.3 million visitors each year, thereby providing much- needed economic growth for the surrounding communities. But the road toward economic prosperity never found its way through Voyageurs National Park. Park officials currently estimate the annual number of visitors at 200,000--less than one-sixth their initial projection. Even worse, the Park Service has tried to cover its tracks by suggesting that the park--despite its low visitor rate--is not underutilized. While the facts and figures certainly counter the Park Service's assertion, nothing beats a first-hand assessment of park use. So, on a beautiful Saturday last July, I visited Voyageurs National Park. While admiring the beauty and historical significance of the lands and waters enclosed within the park, I was struck by the fact that hardly anyone-- with the exception of park officials and a few scattered visitors--was there. It was only when I drove through the neighboring city of International Falls, MN, that I did see a number of tourists and visitors--in line--waiting to pass through customs--on their way to Canada. In 1983, Congress called for the Park Service to create a comprehensive visitor use and facilities plan which would lay out a strategy to increase park use. In spite of Congress' directive, no attempt to carry out the study ever occurred--perhaps due to the Park Service's belief that the park was not being underutilized, bureaucratic stonewalling, or maybe just out of simple negligence. Whatever the reason, Voyageurs National Park today remains underutilized--an isolated enclave--with the people of northern Minnesota forced to pay the price of the National Park Service's mismanagement. The Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have also worked together to curtail legitimate visitor access to and use in the Park. Under the guise of the Endangered Species Act, certain bays were shut off to snowmobiling in order to protect the nesting habitat of bald eagles. While everyone agreed that the eagles should be protected, many believed that both agencies failed to give valid, scientific reasons for closing off the bays. Recently, a Federal district judge ruled that Federal bureaucrats had abused the Endangered Species Act to unfairly restrict snowmobile access in the bays. It is sadly ironic that it took a Federal judge to recognize a legitimate use in the Park--something the Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service have failed to comprehend. But perhaps the greatest example of arrogance on the part of the Federal Government concerns the question of wilderness designation within the Park. Despite the clearly expressed intent of Congress that Voyageurs National Park was to be a multiple recreational use facility, the Park Service has continued to manage certain portions of the Park for wilderness study characteristics. One need go no further than to ask my colleague from Minnesota, Representative Jim Oberstar, who helped create the Park when he served as a Congressional staffer, about the intent of Congress that it was to be open for multiple use. Yet, major segments of the Park continue to be shut off to legitimate and recognized multiple uses--such as snowmobiling, boating and dog sledding--further breaking the long-standing commitments made to northern Minnesotans. Mr. President, as much as we would like to, we cannot rewrite the history of Voyageurs National Park or simply wave a magic wand to right the wrongs to which the people of northern Minnesota have been subjected over the last 25 years. But we can and must take action to ensure that history does not repeat itself--that future management of the Park be conducted in accordance with the views of the people. For that reason, today, I am introducing legislation which would help resolve this controversy by bringing democracy and government accountability back to Voyageurs National Park. Under my legislation, a new Planning and Management Council will be charged with developing and monitoring a comprehensive management plan. It will consist of 11 members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior and will include representatives from Federal, State, local and tribal governments. The management council will be authorized to create Advisory Councils made up of individuals representing diverse interests. All council meetings will be open to the public, who will be given opportunities to provide comment on agenda items. Mr. President, under my bill, public input will no longer be ignored--in fact, it will be encouraged as part of the management process. Finally, my legislation will prohibit the Park Service from issuing any additional regulations regarding the Park between enactment of this bill and the Secretary's final approval of the management plan, except in cases of routine administration, law enforcement need and emergencies. To better understand how this new management council will improve the situation in northern Minnesota, one need look no further than the recent ban that was proposed by the National Park Service on the use of live bait within the interior lakes of Voyageurs National Park--one imposed without the solicitation of public input or notification to area fisherman and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. This unilateral action taken by the Park Service naturally created enormous controversy and outrage in northern Minnesota. As one State official said at the time, ``It was a big surprise to us * * *. There was no prior discussion with us on the ban. There's a longstanding tradition in the park of being able to use live bait.'' After many of us raised our objections and outrage over the ban, the Park Service backpedaled, then lifted the ban, stating that it had misread the law. In doing so, the Superintendent of the Park was quoted in the papers saying, ``I had no idea this was going to be a problem. If I had known, trust me, I would have dealt with it differently.'' Mr. President, think about those words for a second. According to the Park Service, if they had just known, they never would have tried to impose their will on the people. If they had just known, just listened, just sought input, none of this would have happened. That is exactly what we are seeking today. My legislation would avoid such embarrassments in the future by bringing everyone together to ensure that management of the Park is conducted by agreement, not edict. It will ensure that everyone has a seat at the table when the decisions are made. Above all, this new management council will return democracy to the preservation of Voyageurs National Park. It will return to the people of northern Minnesota a voice in how the park is operated and its impact on their communities, economy and livelihood. Mr. President, I spoke earlier today of a growing movement toward democracy in America--born in the heartland of our Nation, led by the American people, and headed toward Washington. Since holding two public field hearings in Minnesota on this issue last year, I have heard from numerous citizen organizations, community leaders, and average Minnesotans about the management of the park and how their daily lives are affected by it. Their message is simple: Let us have a say in how our natural resources are maintained--return some of the power to the people--give us back our government and our country. The silent majority, which has been suppressed for so many years, is now finding its voice again--and it is our responsibility to listen to it and act upon it. By conducting our field hearings, which attracted well over 2,000 Minnesotans, we took the first step by listening. Now, we must move ahead and take action. During those hearings, I heard a number of people give profound and often moving testimony. Many presented facts and figures--invaluable data about the history and management about the park. But what struck me the most during the hearings were the personal stories--the real- life accounts about how the Federal Government and its mismanagement of Voyageurs National Park has truly changed the lives of the people it was created to serve. One of these stories belonged to Carol Selsaas of Cohasset, MN. In her testimony, Carol described the work of her late father, George Esslinger, who was one of the strongest supporters in northern Minnesota for the creation of Voyageurs National Park. Carol said: For over 9 years, my father worked with other men and women to fight for the creation of the park. He assisted the Department of the Interior in physically identifying the boundaries of the park. He traveled and spoke in favor of the park. He gave his heart and soul to the park. He believed the area he supported for a national park should be maintained for the enjoyment of all people: snowmobilers, cross country skiers, boaters, hikers, fishermen, hunters, yes and even dog sledders. He felt that this would be a park for everyone who had respect for this land, not one locked up except for a chosen few. Carol went on to describe how her father supported the park with the understanding that the trails and roads already established--over 200 miles on the Kabetogama Peninsula alone-- would be maintained. To date, all but 12 miles are now closed off to public access. On one of those closed off trails, Carol said, rests a memorial to her father placed by the Park Service. With tears in her eyes, she said that because of the inaccessibility of the trail, she has never been able to visit her father's memorial. ``My father died knowing that he had been lied to,'' said Carol. ``He died apologizing to me, his grandson, his community. On his death bed, I promised that I would fulfill his wish and tell the story of how he was misled in his support for Voyageurs National Park.'' Indeed, she did--as did many other of my fellow Minnesotans. We cannot forget their words or discard their testimonies. In the sterile halls of the Federal buildings here in Washington, the words of Carol Selsaas and others may not mean much, but to me, they describe the heartfelt emotions and passions about the culture of northern Minnesota--a culture that Washington may not understand, but cannot take for granted. Nor can we hide in the halls of Congress from the march of democracy that is spreading throughout the heartland of our country. If we are truly committed to operating as the open democracy described by President Lincoln, we must turn the tide and return power back to its legitimate source in America: the people. The legislation I introduce today is a necessary step in bringing the principles of democracy back to one small, but important region of our Nation. Let us no longer obstruct the march of democracy but help pave the way for it across America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the test of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of S. 1805 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 12 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I rise today with great pride in supporting the budget resolution for fiscal year 1997, and I commend the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and my colleagues on the committee for drafting a piece of legislation of which every American can be proud. This bill, more than anything else, is about promises, making promises and keeping them. The American people have every reason to be cynical about political promises. They hear so many of them, and they hear them repeated so often that it is easy to begin to tune them out. Yet, something resonated with the voters when we went to the people back in November of 1994 and we promised that we would take this country in a better direction if they elected a new majority to Congress. Last year we redefined the role of the Federal Government when we laid out a plan for the Nation's future unlike anything that the people have seen over the last 40 years. Up until then, they had always been told that big Government was good Government; that we could keep spending as much as we wanted and never get stuck with the bill; that Washington knew best. That was nothing more than a fairy tale. Our budget pointed toward a more realistic, more responsible path, and we passed that into law only to have it vetoed by a ``pie crust'' President whose promises are easily made and easily broken. Now the second installment of our balanced budget promise is before us and we have a second opportunity to take our case to the people. Our budget recognizes that we do have a responsibility to guarantee our children a debt-free future and that balancing the budget without raising taxes must be a priority of this Congress. Mr. President, it is ironic that we begin debate on the budget resolution today, May 15. Each year, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation calculates its tax freedom day, and that is the day on which Americans stop working just to pay their State, Federal, and local taxes and actually begin keeping their earnings for themselves. Now let us go back to 1925. Tax freedom day arrived on February 6. But this year, Americans had to wait until May 7 before they were allowed to keep the first dime of their own money. Mr. President, 1996 marked the latest arrival ever for tax freedom day. In fact, tax freedom day has just jumped ahead an entire week since President Clinton took office because under Bill Clinton's watch the Government is taking more from the paychecks of middle-class Americans than ever before. Let me repeat that. Despite all the claims you hear about Bill Clinton doing well with the budget and the deficit, tax freedom day is a week later under Bill Clinton than ever before because, under the watch of President Bill Clinton, he is taking more money out of the pockets of American taxpayers than ever before. I also want to make a couple of notes on some of the charges or responses we have heard today from some of our Democratic colleagues, and I will just go back to Senator Exon and some of the comments he made, that Congress will step in to save Medicare. Senator Frist of Tennessee is more of an expert on this than I am, and he has done a good job of laying it out and trying to explain what happens, but we know the President is using smoke and mirrors when he says he is going to take $55 billion out of Medicare and move it into the general fund so it will make it look like it is solvent. And when Mr. Exon says Government or Congress will step in to save it, what does he mean? The President has ignored the issue. How they would step in and save it would be to raise your taxes. Let us not talk about it today, but if we get the opportunity we will come in and we will raise our taxes. Also, about the claims that they passed the 1993 budget plan without a single Republican vote, we are very proud of that, that we were not part of raising taxes in 1993. My colleague from California, a few minutes ago, was talking about a smaller Government today under President Clinton than ever before, and a higher Government level under President Reagan in the 1980's. But I think that is when you take into consideration all military personnel as well. The truth is, under this administration we have more bureaucrats and more people working in Government outside of the military than at any time in history. So they have not shrunk the size of the Federal Government. They have shrunk the size of the military in order to come up with those numbers. Then lower deficits, the reason we have lower deficits today is because of higher taxes. They are taking more money from the average taxpayer to offset the increase in spending. Also, we have enjoyed some lower interest rates over the last couple of years. But when we are talking about spending, it continues to grow out of control, so we have not reduced the size of the Government, we have not eased the spending burden on Americans, especially when you look again at the fact that tax freedom day comes 1 week later today than it did 3 years ago. And then the gas tax. I tell you, some just cannot stand to let go of a tax no matter how small they try to make it look. They are saying the 4.3 cents is going to go into the pockets of oil companies. That is doubtful. When they reduced the excise tax on air fares, when the Government tax went off, that was immediately passed on to the consumer in a rebate. But no matter what that question might be, we do know one thing, the $5 billion in that increased gas taxes come out of the pockets of taxpayers and it has gone into the pockets of bigger Government. When we talk about cutting and backloading our budgets, and we are charged we do not do any better than what the President has proposed in his budget--there are some very stark differences. Our budget, over the life of 7 years, begins to trim the size and scope of the Federal Government and we will enjoy compounded savings in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh year of our budget. But the President's plan takes 100 percent of its backloading reductions in the last 2 years, and it takes it directly out of discretionary spending. I do not think there is one Member of this Congress who could stand up and tell the mayors and Governors of this country and others they are going to make that deep of a cut in the last 2 years. That will not happen. So we do have some differences in how we achieve the balanced budget. It seems they always try to find some good out of a bad situation. On the farm you would call that trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But the news is more discouraging for taxpayers of Minnesota because national tax freedom day came and went 8 days ago, but Minnesotans do not keep their own dollars until today. That is, 136 days into 1996, because of higher State and local taxes, and the differences in the Federal tax burden, Minnesota is tied with Wisconsin in having the fourth latest tax freedom day in the Nation. Only the residents of Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey pay higher taxes than we do in Minnesota. That is nearly 20 weeks, over 800 hours on the job, just to pay Uncle Sam. By imposing his record-breaking $255 billion tax increase in 1993, again, President Clinton bears the responsibility for ever-increasing tax burdens from singles to families to seniors to job providers. Every segment of society has felt the pinch. Motorists were hit especially hard by the President's gas tax increase, which again boosted the cost of gasoline by nearly $5 billion every year. So, whatever you call it, the Clinton crunch or the middle-class squeeze, as long as taxes keep rising, the dollars Americans have left over to provide for their families will keep falling. It must be the goal of Congress to help Americans earn more money and keep more money so they can do more for themselves, their kids, their communities, and their churches. The budget resolution we begin debating today will go a long way toward ensuring tax freedom day arrives earlier next year for all Americans. Mr. President, its cutting taxes provisions could not come at a better time. Government has become a looming presence in the lives of the American people. Each year the people are asked to turn more responsibilities over to the Federal Government for Government regulation, for Government support. From the time they get up in the morning until they go to bed at night, there are very few aspects of American daily life that are not touched now by the hand of government. So government has been forced to grow just to keep up. Consider that government spending at the Federal, State, and local level has jumped from 12 percent of the national income in 1930 to 42 percent today, and the burden for keeping these ever-ballooning bureaucracies in operation has fallen on the taxpayers, of course, through more and higher taxes. The increase has been dramatic. Between 1934 and 1995, individual Federal income taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product rose 1,114 percent. Today, the typical American family faces a tax burden from all levels of government of 38 percent, and most middle-class American families are turning more money over to the government than they are spending for their family's food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined. Families with children are now the lowest after-tax income group in America, below elderly households, single persons and families without children. A significant number of families are relying on a second job just to pull themselves above the poverty line and to meet their annual tax obligations. The majority of families who have reached a middle-class standard of living are families with two incomes. They are still trying to pursue the American dream, but the ever-increasing tax burden keeps pushing it out of reach. According to the Gallup organization, 67 percent of the people say they are handing over too much of their own money to the Federal Government. They might feel differently if they were getting a fair return on the investment, but Americans see their hard-earned dollars being wasted by the Federal Government. They look at the services they are getting in return and they feel like they have been taken to the cleaners. It has always been easy for past Congresses to be generous with somebody else's money. This Congress, however, is no longer willing to let the Government gamble away the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. In fact, we are going to keep those dollars out of the Government's hands in the first place. The centerpiece of our balanced budget plan is the $500 per child tax credit, and I am proud this desperately needed provision remains at the heart of our legislation. The tax credit alone will allow 28 million taxpaying households to keep $23 billion of their own money each year. In my home State of Minnesota, the tax credit would return $477 million every year to families who work hard, pay their bills, and struggle every day to care for their children without relying on the Government. In addition another 3.5 million households nationwide will find the $500-per-child tax credit tax liability has eliminated their tax liability entirely; 3.5 million households. President Clinton has promised a middle-class tax cut of his own, but, again, it is virtually nonexistent in his 1997 budget. Let us look at what he calls for. To qualify for the President's version of the child tax credit your child has to be under the age of 13--meaning that just about the time you need that tax relief the most, it would dry up. In addition, it would only be $300 per child for 3 of its 5 years, and then it would be abruptly terminated 2 years early. The $122 billion in tax relief Congress is offering in our budget resolution is real tax relief. It is not a paper gimmick. The second plank of the legislation before us is the promise to balance the budget by the year 2002. Every year the Federal Government is spending billions and billions more than it takes in. Because of 4 decades of fiscal insanity, the national debt has today eclipsed $5 trillion and continues to rise. Just the interest alone on a debt that massive is accumulating at the rate of $4 million an hour. If our national debt were shared equally among all Americans, each of us would have to pay up $19,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. Every child born today in the United States of America comes into the world already saddled with a debt of more than $19,000. The share for an average family is $75,000. So the first, most important result of a balanced budget would be to free our children and grandchildren from the economic burden they will inherit from this generation, a burden they did not ask for and one they certainly do not deserve. Because we have been able to begin reining in spending over the past year, our budget reaches balance in 6 years, not 7 as we first proposed a year ago. By contrast, the President's 1997 budget plan never achieves balance. It achieves an annual budget deficit of $84 billion by the year 2002. Our plan achieves its goals without dramatic cuts of any kind--except in the deficit. Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare programs, and the earned income tax credit will all continue to grow to meet this Nation's needs over the 6-year life of our budget. Keeping promises may be considered out of style here in the Nation's Capital City, where promises are a dime a dozen among the professional politicians, but back in Minnesota a promise is something a person does not back down on, even if it was made by a politician. With our budget resolution and its meaningful tax relief, its protections to ensure the solvency of the Medicare Program, its reform of the welfare system, its commitment to a balanced budget by the year 2002, this Congress is keeping the promises that we made to the American taxpayers. Thank you very much, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, first, in business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess today from the hours of 1:30 to 3:30 and that the time during recess then be charged equally from the budget resolution. By the way, this does have the approval of the minority side as well.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. In addition, my resolution has the strong support of more than a dozen of the area's residential, business, and historical organizations representing thousands of job providers and the District's half million residents. I ask unanimous consent to submit this list and supporting letters for printing in the Record. Mr. President, I have come to the floor several times over the past year to voice my concerns about the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue. I have talked about the damage it has done to Washington's business community, and the fear that it is scaring off new jobs and prompting potential retail and commercial tenants to stay away from the downtown area. I have talked about the damage it has done to Washington's business community, and the fear that it's 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 anyone whose paycheck depends on access to the avenue, people like cab drivers and tour bus operators. I have outlined problem after problem the closing has created for the District itself, which had one of its major arteries unilaterally severed by the Federal Government without any consultation. I have discussed the inconvenience of our tourists, especially the elderly and disabled, many of whom are now being deprived of a close look at the White House. And I have talked about the tremendous cost for the taxpayers, a cost which has already reached into the millions of dollars. I have raised each of those aspects of the closing because they are all relevant and pressing concerns. But that is not what I want to discuss today. 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 has done to the psyche of this city, and what we give up when we give in to fear. The air was thick with fear in the weeks following April 19, 1995, when terrorists attacked the Federal building in Oklahoma City. How could something like this happen within our own borders, people wondered. And fear took hold. That was certainly the atmosphere in Washington--an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust that prompted the Treasury Department to close down two blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue a month after the tragic Oklahoma City bombing. Now, obviously, protecting the President and those who work and visit the White House must be a primary concern, a matter never to be taken lightly. The occupant of the Oval Office deserves every reasonable measure of security we can provide. So if the Secret Service had information that the White House was a terrorist target and the President was in danger, then it was absolutely prudent at the time to close Pennsylvania Avenue. But that was an entire year ago, and a decision that may have appeared prudent then strikes many as regrettable and short-sighted today. Rather than helping the Nation face down our fear, the Government's decision to close Pennsylvania Avenue--and keep it closed--has only perpetuated it. This is the White House today. Not a pretty sight, is it? The stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue that stood for 195 years as ``America's Main Street'' is empty of any traffic--more a vacant lot than a working street. Gone is the thrill for visitors of driving by the White House for the first time--the concrete barricades, traffic sawhorses, and ever- present patrol vehicles and armed officers have put an end to that. Gone, too, is the sense of openness that inspired generations of visitors to feel close to the Presidency and their Government when they visited the Executive Mansion. Today, there is an ominous atmosphere at the White House that you feel nowhere else in Washington. Visitors seem more to be tolerated than welcomed, and the fortress-like effect they discover there is unnerving. I have no doubt that the place is secure--as secure as a bunker. But the price we have paid for all this security is immense because it has come at the expense of freedom. Was it not Benjamin Franklin who warned against ``giving up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety''? And liberty is precisely what we have given up by closing off Pennsylvania Avenue. While we may have obtained some temporary safety, we have surrendered to fear in order to get it, even though one of the first lessons we teach our young people in their American history classes is that freedom cannot coexist with fear. Mr. President, a visit to the Nation's capital can have a profound impact on the schoolchildren who visit here every year. It is a place where history comes alive, and every monument, museum, and historic site they visit is a page right out of the textbooks. The feeling they get by being immersed in history can not be duplicated in a classroom, and I know that a trip to Washington, DC has inspired many, many young people to seek careers in public service. But how confused they must be when they visit the White House. Before travelling here, they have studied the Revolutionary War. They have read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. They have been taught that the foundation upon which this Nation was built was our absolute right to be free from oppression. It is that freedom, we tell them--a freedom we hold sacred, and treasure above all else--that makes this Nation so different from any other. So what do you suppose goes through their minds when they at last visit the home of their President and find it barricaded behind all that concrete? The preamble to the Constitution, with its talk of securing the blessings of liberty, must ring awfully hollow if this is what liberty really looks like. What lesson are we teaching them about the freedom we claim to value so highly? What kind of message are we sending our children when they discover that the very center of the free world is not so very free after all? I can tell you what they are thinking. I visit the White House two or three times a month, and I have heard their comments and seen the disappointment in their faces. They tell me it is shameful, it is disappointing, and it is wrong. If there is a compelling reason to keep Pennsylvania Avenue permanently closed, I hope someone will step forward and make their case. I have been asking the question for nearly a year now, and have not yet heard a reasonable answer. The monetary cost of shutting Pennsylvania Avenue down has been enormous Mr. President, but the emotional cost of keeping it closed forever would be devasting. We may only be talking about two, short blocks, but those two blocks have represented freedom and access since nearly the birth of this Nation. While we must never allow ourselves to become reckless about our security, it is equally true that we must never allow ourselves to become reckless about our freedom, either, especially when freedom is represented by such a visible symbol as the White House. The way Pennsylvania Avenue looks today, well, that is just not the America, envisioned by our Founding Fathers. It is certainly not the America John Kennedy spoke of in his 1961 inaugural address: Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty. That resolve may have softened on Pennsylvania Avenue, but it is not too late to rekindle that spirit. I believe that good sense will prevail and the avenue will reopen. And someday, Mr. President, when they are old enough to appreciate what it all means, I will take my grandchildren to the White House. I will show them the home of the Presidents--great leaders like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, who defined liberty for a young Nation and ensured that this would forever be a place where freedom could flourish. And when they realized that the President lives in a house just like they do, along a street a lot like theirs, my grandchildren will smile. Castles and kings require moats and crocodiles, but Presidents, well, they make their homes in houses, set on busy streets, in the hearts of busy cities. Open and accessible. And that is just the way Presidents ought to live. My grandchildren may not understand just what liberty and freedom really mean, but they will feel its powerful presence and I hope they will be inspired. There are a thousand good reasons to reopen Pennsylvania Avenue, Mr. President, but only one reason I can see for keeping it closed, and that is fear. We cannot allow fear to claim this victory. We cannot allow the 1-year anniversary of the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue to pass without this Senate taking a stand on the side of freedom. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, in just 6 days, the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House will mark its 1-year anniversary. I rise today to speak for the 15 million tourists who visit the Nation's Capital each year, the local businessmen and women whose livelihoods depend upon open access, the government of the District of Columbia, the commuters who rely on our roads, and the people who call Washington, DC, home. On their behalf, I am submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that Pennsylvania Avenue be reopened to traffic and returned to its historic use. The May 20th closing is one anniversary we should not have to commemorate. This resolution has the support of many with strong ties to the Washington community. I am grateful to have the endorsement of District of Columbia Mayor Marion Barry, and I am also proud that D.C. Council Chairman David Clarke and Councilmember Frank Smith support this effort. I ask unanimous consent that statements from Mayor Barry and Chairman Clarke and Councilmember Smith be included in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to resolve one of the longest and most heartfelt controversies in my home State of Minnesota: the future of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. In 1978, 1 million acres in northern Minnesota were designated by Congress as our Nation's only lakeland-based Federal wilderness area. This area was named the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, or BWCAW. Through this Federal designation, Congress rightfully acknowledged the need to protect the tremendous ecological and recreational resources existing within the BWCAW. At the same time, however, Congress recognized that it was to be a multiple-use wilderness area, as first envisioned by Senator Hubert Humphrey back in 1964. When Senator Humphrey included the region now known as the boundary waters in the National Wilderness System, he made that commitment to the people of Minnesota when he said ``The Wilderness bill will not ban motorboats.'' Respected preservationist Sigurd F. Olson reiterated Senator Humphrey's pledge, saying ``Nothing in this act shall preclude the continuance within the area of already established use of motorboats.'' In fact, it is safe to say that without those commitments to the people of Minnesota, it is doubtful whether this region would be a wilderness area today. The 1978 legislation creating the boundary waters also included commitments allowing motorized uses of select lakes and portages. Minnesotans were to be given reasonable access to recreation in the boundary waters. The region would be preserved as a national treasure that could be enjoyed by everyone. But as time passed, those commitments were forgotten in Washington. Since 1978, the people of northern Minnesota have been subjected to ever-increasing U.S. Forest Service regulations in the boundary waters. Many in the area have seen their customs, cultures and traditions uprooted by federal regulations which have shut them out of the land they call home. Definition changes and unreasonable permit restrictions are just a few of the administrative changes that have twisted the original intent of the boundary waters legislation, making the area less accessible for the people who live there. This 18-year history of broken promises and creeping encroachment by the Federal Government has led to a region of our State being overtaken by Washington bureaucrats, their rules and regulations, and restrictions on public access and input. It has turned the original boundary waters law on its head and prevented many of us from enjoying the same natural resources our mothers and fathers cared for over the years. Enough is enough. It is time to return to the original intent of the boundary waters legislation, to give the public access to the natural resources which surround them, and to give Minnesotans a say in how their land is managed. My legislation will do just that. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Accessibility and Partnership Act is designed to achieve these goals with several modest, common-sense reforms. First, it will allow the reinstatement of three motorized portages to assist in transporting boats between five lakes in the boundary waters region. Prior to their closing in 1993, these portages were essential in transporting many of the elderly and disabled between motorized lakes in the BWCAW. Because of the successful efforts of environmental extremists to close down the portages, these Minnesotans have found themselves unfairly shut out from the boundary waters because of their age or disability. Under my legislation, such discrimination will no longer be tolerated. By reopening the portages, my bill will ensure that the boundary waters will be there for the enjoyment of all who visit, not just the young and strong. Second, it will create a new Planning and Management Council charged with developing and monitoring a comprehensive management plan. This management council will consist of 11 members appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and will include representatives from Federal, State, local, and tribal governments. The management council will be authorized to create advisory councils made up of individuals representing civic, business, conservation, sportsperson, and citizen organizations. All council meetings will be open to the public, who will be given opportunities to provide comment on agenda items. Minutes will be recorded at all meetings and made available for public inspection. Under my legislation, public input will no longer be ignored--in fact, it will be encouraged as part of the management process. Finally, my legislation will prohibit the Forest Service from issuing any additional regulations regarding the BWCAW between enactment of the bill and final approval of the management plan, except in cases of routine administration, law enforcement need, and emergencies. All in all, the bill I introduce today is a modest and reasonable attempt to give back to the people one of their most basic rights: the freedom to enjoy our natural resources responsibly. It comes as the result of two public field hearings in Minnesota, 9 hours of public testimony from 32 witnesses from Minnesota, and pages of documents, data, and public feedback. It will increase public input and participation in the management of the boundary waters, creating a partnership between the Government and the people of Minnesota. And it will ensure the protection of this national treasure for generations to come. This legislation has been a long time coming. For nearly 20 years, the people of Minnesota have waited patiently for the Federal Government to act on their behalf. They should not have to wait any longer. We must move expeditiously to ensure that their rights--as prescribed within this measure--are no longer held hostage by overzealous regulators and administrators from Washington. The people of northern Minnesota deserve to finally have their voices heard in the Halls of Congress. Today, we take that first step. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to resolve one of the longest and most heartfelt controversies in my home State of Minnesota: the future of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. In 1978, 1 million acres in northern Minnesota were designated by Congress as our Nation's only lakeland-based Federal wilderness area. This area was named the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, or BWCAW. Through this Federal designation, Congress rightfully acknowledged the need to protect the tremendous ecological and recreational resources existing within the BWCAW. At the same time, however, Congress recognized that it was to be a multiple-use wilderness area, as first envisioned by Senator Hubert Humphrey back in 1964. When Senator Humphrey included the region now known as the boundary waters in the National Wilderness System, he made that commitment to the people of Minnesota when he said ``The Wilderness bill will not ban motorboats.'' Respected preservationist Sigurd F. Olson reiterated Senator Humphrey's pledge, saying ``Nothing in this act shall preclude the continuance within the area of already established use of motorboats.'' In fact, it is safe to say that without those commitments to the people of Minnesota, it is doubtful whether this region would be a wilderness area today. The 1978 legislation creating the boundary waters also included commitments allowing motorized uses of select lakes and portages. Minnesotans were to be given reasonable access to recreation in the boundary waters. The region would be preserved as a national treasure that could be enjoyed by everyone. But as time passed, those commitments were forgotten in Washington. Since 1978, the people of northern Minnesota have been subjected to ever-increasing U.S. Forest Service regulations in the boundary waters. Many in the area have seen their customs, cultures and traditions uprooted by federal regulations which have shut them out of the land they call home. Definition changes and unreasonable permit restrictions are just a few of the administrative changes that have twisted the original intent of the boundary waters legislation, making the area less accessible for the people who live there. This 18-year history of broken promises and creeping encroachment by the Federal Government has led to a region of our State being overtaken by Washington bureaucrats, their rules and regulations, and restrictions on public access and input. It has turned the original boundary waters law on its head and prevented many of us from enjoying the same natural resources our mothers and fathers cared for over the years. Enough is enough. It is time to return to the original intent of the boundary waters legislation, to give the public access to the natural resources which surround them, and to give Minnesotans a say in how their land is managed. My legislation will do just that. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Accessibility and Partnership Act is designed to achieve these goals with several modest, common-sense reforms. First, it will allow the reinstatement of three motorized portages to assist in transporting boats between five lakes in the boundary waters region. Prior to their closing in 1993, these portages were essential in transporting many of the elderly and disabled between motorized lakes in the BWCAW. Because of the successful efforts of environmental extremists to close down the portages, these Minnesotans have found themselves unfairly shut out from the boundary waters because of their age or disability. Under my legislation, such discrimination will no longer be tolerated. By reopening the portages, my bill will ensure that the boundary waters will be there for the enjoyment of all who visit, not just the young and strong. Second, it will create a new Planning and Management Council charged with developing and monitoring a comprehensive management plan. This management council will consist of 11 members appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and will include representatives from Federal, State, local, and tribal governments. The management council will be authorized to create advisory councils made up of individuals representing civic, business, conservation, sportsperson, and citizen organizations. All council meetings will be open to the public, who will be given opportunities to provide comment on agenda items. Minutes will be recorded at all meetings and made available for public inspection. Under my legislation, public input will no longer be ignored--in fact, it will be encouraged as part of the management process. Finally, my legislation will prohibit the Forest Service from issuing any additional regulations regarding the BWCAW between enactment of the bill and final approval of the management plan, except in cases of routine administration, law enforcement need, and emergencies. All in all, the bill I introduce today is a modest and reasonable attempt to give back to the people one of their most basic rights: the freedom to enjoy our natural resources responsibly. It comes as the result of two public field hearings in Minnesota, 9 hours of public testimony from 32 witnesses from Minnesota, and pages of documents, data, and public feedback. It will increase public input and participation in the management of the boundary waters, creating a partnership between the Government and the people of Minnesota. And it will ensure the protection of this national treasure for generations to come. This legislation has been a long time coming. For nearly 20 years, the people of Minnesota have waited patiently for the Federal Government to act on their behalf. They should not have to wait any longer. We must move expeditiously to ensure that their rights--as prescribed within this measure--are no longer held hostage by overzealous regulators and administrators from Washington. The people of northern Minnesota deserve to finally have their voices heard in the Halls of Congress. Today, we take that first step. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate as in morning business for the next 5 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator from Georgia. Mr. President, Webster's dictionary defines freedom as ``the quality or state of being free; the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.'' That is the dictionary definition anyway. But how do Americans define freedom for themselves and their families? For most of us, freedom means the ability to make our own choices-- basic decisions like where we are going to live, what kind of job we are going to have, where we would like our children to go to school, and how we want to raise them. And in a free society like ours, freedom certainly has to include controlling our own finances. But does it? American families feel like they are being stripped of their financial freedom. There is strong evidence to back that up. And you can blame it on taxes. Each year, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation calculates Tax Freedom Day. That is the day on which Americans stop working just to pay their State, Federal, and local taxes and actually begin keeping their earnings for themselves or for their families. In 1925, Tax Freedom Day arrived on February 6. But this year, New Year's Day, Groundhog Day, Valentine's Day, President's Day, St. Patrick's Day--Earth Day and Arbor Day, as well--will all have come and gone before Americans get to keep the first dime of their own money on May 7. At 128 days into the year, 1996 marks Tax Freedom Day's latest arrival ever. In fact, Tax Freedom Day has jumped ahead an entire week since President Clinton took office, because under Bill Clinton's watch, the Government is taking more from the paychecks of middle-class Americans than ever before. Today, the typical American family faces a total tax burden of 38 percent. Taxpayers are turning more money over to the Government than they are spending for their family's food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined. The news is even more discouraging for the taxpayers of Minnesota, my home State. Because of higher State and local tax rates and differences in the Federal tax burden, Minnesota is tied with Wisconsin in having the fourth-latest Tax Freedom Day in the Nation. Minnesotans will not begin keeping their own dollars until May 15, fully 8 days later than the national average. Only the residents of Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey pay higher taxes than we Minnesotans. By imposing his record-breaking, $265 billion tax increase in 1993, President Clinton bears the responsibility for the ever-increasing tax burden on Americans. From singles, to families, to seniors, to job-providers, every segment of society has felt the pinch. Motorists were hit especially hard by the President's gas tax increase, which has boosted the cost of gasoline by nearly $5 billion every year. Whatever you call it--the ``Clinton crunch'' or the ``middle-class squeeze''--as long as taxes keep rising, the dollars Americans have left over to provide for their families will keep falling. And so it should be the goal of Congress and the President to help Americans earn more money, and keep more of the money they earn, so they can do more for themselves, their kids, their communities, their churches. If Washington wants to ensure that Tax Freedom Day arrives earlier next year, there are four important steps we'll have to take. No. 1. Cut taxes for working families. Tax-cutting ideas like the $500-per child tax credit, elimination of the marriage penalty, adoption and eldercare tax credits, and tax incentives designed to create jobs and boost salaries, were the centerpiece of the balanced budget plan passed by Congress last year. That was the same balanced budget vetoed by the President. He does not seem to understand what you and I and the American people already know: cutting taxes is the single-most valuable way Washington can give families back control of their own dollars. And the first tax we are going to roll back is the Clinton gas tax increase. It comes at a time when hard-working Americans are feeling anxious and worried about making ends meet. Congress must not rest until President Clinton has signed our tax relief into law. No. 2. Make it harder for Washington to raise taxes. It is easy for the Government to claim that compassion is fueling the billions spent each year on its smorgasbord of expensive Federal programs. But what the Government keeps forgetting is that its compassion is funded by the tax dollars it takes from hard-working Americans. If we are ever going to rein in big Government and wasteful spending, we must make it harder for the big spenders in Washington to take more of the taxpayers' money through higher taxes. We have to make it more difficult. My colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, and I introduced a constitutional amendment in February to require that any new tax, or expansion of a current tax, be approved by the House and Senate by a three-fifths supermajority vote, not the simple majority needed today. The House recently debated a similar amendment--theirs required a two- thirds majority vote. Ten States have supermajority laws on the books, and taxes have actually dropped in those States by about 2 percent. Taxpayers elsewhere are dealing with a 2-percent increase in the taxes they pay to government without that supermajority. There have been 16 major votes in Congress over the last 30 years to increase taxes. That is a new tax increase every 22 months on average-- apparently there has been no shame of going to the well of taxpayer money every time the big spenders in Washington wanted to spend more. Many of those tax increases, however, passed by slim margins-- including the one-vote margin approving President Clinton's 1993 increase--and would not have been enacted at all if the three-fifths or two-thirds requirement had been in effect at that time. No. 3. Educate the taxpayers about where their tax dollars are going. Most people know that their Federal tax dollars fund the Social Security program, and Medicare. But beyond that, few give much thought as to how the rest of the $1.4 trillion the Government will collect in taxes this year is spent. For example, they probably would not think that some of the most successful products in the world--products like Tyson chicken, McDonald's hamburgers, and Gallo wine--would need to have their advertising subsidized by the taxpayers. Yet the Federal Government will spend 90 million tax dollars this year promoting these and other household names overseas. Would taxpayers guess that many of the Nation's wealthiest communities are taking tax dollars to build boating marinas and riding trails? Or that the Government runs 125 separate job-training programs at an annual cost of $16 billion--often training people for dead-end jobs, or jobs that do not exist? The taxpayers have every right to feel ripped off. But what should disturb them most is that in 1996, we are spending 15 percent of the Federal budget just to pay the interest on money we borrowed to finance expensive programs we could not afford in the first place. Mr. President, an educated taxpayer is the Washington establishment's worst enemy. No. 4. Reform the tax system. There are not many Americans who celebrate when April 15 rolls around. Not only are taxes too high, but people are frustrated by a tax collection system that is too complicated, too big, and too unfair. As proof of just how massive the IRS has grown, consider that the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Border Patrol have a combined work force of 36,600 employees, while the IRS itself carries 111,000 workers on its payroll. We need tax reform--a fairer, simpler, more sensible way to pay for the services of Government. The National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform recently outlined six goals for Congress to consider in reinventing our tax system to make it more responsive to the taxpayers: First, fairness for all taxpayers; economic growth through incentives to work, save, and invest; simplicity, because the tax system should be less costly to manage, and everyone should be able to understand it; neutrality so that people, not Government, are making the choices; visibility so that Americans know what they're getting for the taxes they pay; and stability, to allow families more freedom to plan for their futures. Mr. President, Tuesday, May 7--Tax Freedom Day--should be more than just another day for counting up the high cost of Government. We want to give back Americans control of their lives. We want to give Americans their freedom. Therefore, Washington can and must do better by the taxpayers. Mr. President, let us use Tax Freedom Day as a reminder of what freedom really means to Americans, and just how important it is that we continue fighting for it on their behalf. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, last week I hosted a meeting of the International Committee for a Free Vietnam [ICFV] which resulted in the drafting and presentation of a resolution which promotes democracy in Vietnam, particularly individual freedoms and human rights. Joining us were Parliamentary leaders from Europe, Canada, and Australia. Since Vietnamese leaders will hold their Eighth Party Congress in June, it is important that we communicate the reforms recommended in the resolution to the Vietnamese, to continue the dialogue begun as we continue to normalize our relations with Vietnam. While at the meeting, I was disturbed to learn that a distinguished member of the group Col. Bui Tin, a former member of the Vietnamese Communist Party, received a death threat which was alleged to originate from Vietnamese Government sources. He is not the only one who has received these threats, but he is the only one with whom I am personally acquainted. It was very disappointing to me to hear this, just at the time we hope to improve our relationship with Vietnam. Col. Bui Tin, a resident of Europe, has done nothing but advocate democratic reforms in Vietnam, consistent with the first-amendment rights we have in our country. He does so out of concern for the people of Vietnam, where he was a soldier for over 37 years. I join many of my colleagues in urging the leaders of Vietnam to cease this kind of threat, which is just as egregious, if not more, as the continuing imprisonment of many political prisoners in Vietnam today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution of the ICFV adopted on April 24, 1996, be printed in the Record for the information of all Senators.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I don't know how or why it developed, but one trait most humans share is a deep interest in chronicling the passage of time. And so we attach a special significance to the observance of anniversaries--those anniversaries marking celebration and achievement, and those marking solemn events of remembrance and passage. On May 20, 3 weeks from today, we'll have an opportunity to observe both. We'll be celebrating the 88th birthday of actor Jimmy Stewart, the 64th anniversary of Amelia Earhart's solo flight across the Atlantic, the patenting of the fountain pen in 1830, and Levis' riveted-pocket blue jeans in 1873. But on May 20, we'll also be observing a much more troubling event, because unless the Government takes action in the next 3 weeks to stop it, we'll be marking the 1-year anniversary of the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. Mr. President, we have an opportunity--an obligation--to prevent this anniversary from ever happening. The city has certainly grown up around it, but Pennsylvania Avenue has changed surprisingly little since 1791, when George Washington gave his approval to Pierre L'Enfant's innovative city plan. They envisioned the avenue as a bold, ceremonial stretch of boulevard physically linking the U.S. Capitol Building and the White House, and symbolically linking the legislative and executive branches of government. By the early 1800's, Pennsylvania Avenue had become a busy thoroughfare. The people of Washington went about their daily business in the shadow of the White House, which for much of the 19th century, wasn't set off from the street by as much as a fence. Believe it or not, folks used to pull their carriages up to the front door of the President's house to ask for directions. By 1995, carriages had been replaced by station wagons and tour buses, and Pennsylvania Avenue--America's main street--had grown up. Over 80 feet wide, the modern, six-lane boulevard was being used by more than 26,000 vehicles every day. Families on vacation would travel down Pennsylvania Avenue past the White House on the same route their ancestors might have taken, and it gave a lot of people goosebumps. When ordinary citizens could drive by the President's home or walk by his front gate, well, that said something important to them about living in a country where freedom is valued above all else. As the home to every President since John Adams, the White House had become one of Pennsylvania Avenue's crown jewels, a primary destination of visitors to the Nation's Capital. The People's House was hosting 1\1/2\ million tourists annually. Given its prominent location on Pennsylvania Avenue and its proximity to the people, the White House was a powerful symbol of freedom, openness, and an individual's access to their Government. That is, until May 20 of last year, when the Treasury Department shut down two blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue. For the first time in its 195- year history, all traffic in front of the White House came to a halt. The President ordered the avenue closed to vehicles in the wake of the tragic Oklahoma City bombing a month earlier, citing possible security risks from trucks carrying terrorist bombs. At the time, the President said the decision wouldn't change very much except the traffic patterns in Washington--but it has. By barricading a symbol of democracy and access which dates back to nearly the birth of this Nation, we've surrendered to fear. Without striking a single match in the vicinity of Washington, the terrorists have won. Have you been to the White House lately, Mr. President? You'll see what fear looks like. With all the guards, the guns, the cement barriers, the police cruisers, Pennsylvania Avenue now looks like what some are calling a war zone. Or a bunker. This is not the White House of leaders like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, who defined freedom's essence and took deep pride in being its stewards. In fact, I don't know whose White House this is anymore. But I do know that it no longer seems to belong to the people. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues had an opportunity to read the editorials on the subject of Pennsylvania Avenue published in the Washington Post over the last several months. The newspaper has focused on fear, and what happens when that fear is allowed to take hold and fester until it dictates and clouds the decisions made every day here in Washington. ``This is a concession to terrorism that should not be made permanent,'' wrote the Post last December. ``Two world wars did not close Pennsylvania Avenue. Neither did the Civil War or past attempts on Presidents' lives, as the White House itself has noted. The avenue stayed open despite a British invasion, and despite street riots in the 1960's. But now, because of the devastation in Oklahoma City, the history of Pennsylvania Avenue may be erased by bulldozers.'' Mr. President, it would be a second tragedy if a capital city steeped in fear is among the lasting legacies of the Oklahoma City bombing. That is not how we should honor the explosion's innocent victims. In their rush to close Pennsylvania Avenue down, officials apparently gave little thought to the long-term consequences of their action. After all, Pennsylvania Avenue is far more than just a decorative patch of roadway, reserved for parades and official functions. It's a living, vital spoke of the city. For almost 200 years, Washington's workers and families have lived along Pennsylvania Avenue, shopped along it, dined along it, done their shopping at its corner markets, traveled on it to and from the office. The knee-jerk closing of such a major artery has had a devastating cost for the District of Columbia and its businesses, its commuters, its tourists, its residents. With the avenue closed for two blocks, and several surrounding streets blocked off as well, the people who live, work, and visit here and give life to this city are feeling choked off from it. Nearby businesses are no longer as accessible to employees and clients, now that daily traffic hassles tie up the downtown area. City officials are worried that commercial development will eventually suffer: with the city's east and west sides artificially separated, potential tenants may decide to skip the headaches of dealing with the closed avenue and opt to locate outside Washington. A great deal of parking space has been eliminated, too. Add up the lost parking revenue, the cost of changing street signs and signals, higher Metrobus subsidies, and police overtime, and just 6 weeks into the closing, the District estimated the cost of closing Pennsylvania Avenue had already reached nearly $750,000. I'm afraid the cost after an entire year will be staggering. And that doesn't begin to take into account the other indirect costs of the closing. Tour bus operators can no longer drive their customers--many of whom are strapped for time, or unable to walk the extra three or four blocks--past the White House. What about the public transportation system? In order to provide the same services it offered before the Pennsylvania Avenue shutdown, transit officials have estimated they'll need to spend up to $200,000 more every year by adding new buses and drivers. And the increased bus traffic on streets not meant to bear such a heavy load is threatening historic buildings like Decatur House on H Street and St. John's Episcopal Church on Lafayette Square. Both have survived more than 175 years of political turbulence, but neither was built to endure the rumbling they've been subjected to over the last 12 months. Buses now pass by at a rate of more than 1,000 trips a day-- experts are afraid the traffic will reduce the structures to rubble. What's most troubling about all of this is the fact that the Federal Government carried out the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue without any consultation with the District, without any direct public input from the people their decision would most disrupt. Mr. President, the people of this city who depend on open access to Pennsylvania Avenue say they've accepted the present closure, but they're not going along with the idea that the avenue must be blockaded forever. That case has simply not been made, they say. And I agree. I was pleased to learn that the National Park Service recently scrapped what they called their interim beautification plan for the 1,600-foot strip of the avenue between Lafayette Park and the White House. The plan involved replacing large sections of the asphalt with grass, but architects called it off when they realized that something as drastic as digging up the asphalt would be too hard to change in the future, once a final plan of action is decided upon. The Park Service is still going ahead with plans to bring in 115 concrete barriers disguised as planters to ring the closed-off avenue. Most of these new roadblocks are almost 3 feet high; the largest is 7 by 13 feet and weighs 36 tons. ``It will really dress the area up,'' said a Park Service official. Mr. President, I don't believe Martha Stewart herself could dress up a 36-ton, concrete traffic barricade. And the cost of these new measures? About half a million dollars--a great deal of taxpayers' money, especially considering it's only supposed to be temporary. Last December, 14 top architects, planners, and sculptors met to brainstorm about the future of Pennsylvania Avenue. They didn't publicly announce any final decisions--that won't happen until later this year. But they are expected to release five proposals later this month on how to proceed. Most of the plans are said to center around the idea of keeping the avenue closed and turning the area surrounding the White House into some sort of President's park, something they say could become a shrine of democracy. But a pretty name can't disguise a terrible idea. Mr. President, Washington doesn't need another ceremonial park, especially around the White House. Kings live in park enclaves, as they say, while Presidents live along streets. Washington doesn't need another shrine to democracy, either. This city itself is a shrine to democracy. I would suggest that returning Pennsylvania Avenue to the way it was before May 20, 1995, would be the greatest tribute to democracy we could offer. We all need to stop, catch our breath, and put aside the fear. If we don't, where will it stop? One year after Oklahoma City, the Government has already increased its national security force by more than 800 guards, at a cost to the taxpayers of $32 million. New security equipment is being installed in Federal buildings to the tune of $77 million, and another $174 million is slated to be spent on additional security measures over the next 20 months. Then what? There are 8,100 Federal buildings in the United States--do we turn each and every one of them into a fortress? Already, the drastic security measures undertaken on Pennsylvania Avenue have set a precedent and have been mirrored on Capitol Hill. Access to streets on the Senate side of the Capitol have been shut off and parking has been eliminated or restricted in many places. Security at the Capitol itself has been tightened dramatically. How much of Washington, DC, are we going to have to rope off before the public begins thinking we simply don't want them here? As tragic as it sounds, that's the message we're sending. Mr. President, all Americans are deeply concerned about the safety of their President. The security measures used to protect him must be well reasoned, appropriate, and thorough. I don't question the desire to afford him every ounce of security available, but I do question whether we can satisfy that desire without sacrificing the people's freedom. The sad truth is that we can't protect the President--or any Federal worker, for that matter--by sealing them off from the world. A determined terrorist will not be stopped. But there will always be risks in a free and open society. I received a letter from a California man who wanted to share his thoughts as an occasional visitor to this city. ``I am in Washington about 10 times a year,'' he wrote, ``and I feel an oppression there that I feel in no other city, either in the United States or abroad. I really feel the oppression around the White House.'' He wrote that any black or white minivan parked in the vicinity will have a policeman in it. That's in addition to the policemen with dogs, and the vast number on foot and in Secret Service cars in the area, all behind those ugly, concrete barriers. ``Closing off Pennsylvania Avenue seems to be going a bit overboard,'' he concluded. In the year since the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue, the calls for its reopening have grown louder. There's a deep perception among many Americans that the closing was an emotional reaction--a judgment rendered too quickly, and initiated out of fear. It's time for President Clinton to reconsider a decision made amidst such emotion, and replace it with one of reasoned courage. And so I am sending today a letter to the President requesting the reopening of Pennsylvania Avenue no later than May 17, 1996. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on behalf of the American people who aren't here to stand up for themselves, I ask my colleagues to stand with me in taking back Pennsylvania Avenue from the fear to which it has been surrendered. It's time to halt these efforts to close off the people's house, on America's main street, from the people themselves. We don't need to wait for the reports and recommendations of another government commission to know that this is wrong. By ordering the immediate reopening of Pennsylvania Avenue, President Clinton has the power to return the avenue to the people. He has the power to undo a costly mistake. He has the power to ensure that the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue does not mark its first anniversary. We must not allow fear to claim the victory. Dismantle the barricades, Mr. President, and may the souls of the patriots who founded this Nation in freedom's name take pity on us if we don't. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, April 29, 1996. Hon. Bill Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: As you are no doubt aware, May 20, 1996 will mark the passage of one year since the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. To eliminate the need for observing this somber anniversary, I am writing to respectfully request the reopening of Pennsylvania Avenue by a date no later than May 17, 1996. Within the history of Pennsylvania Avenue can be traced the history of this great nation. In 1791, President George Washington commissioned Pierre Charles L'Enfant to draft a blueprint for America's new capital city. They envisioned Pennsylvania Avenue as a ceremonial boulevard physically linking the U.S. Capitol and the White House, and symbolically linking the Legislative and Executive branches of government. As an integral element of the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania Avenue stood for 195 years as a vital, working, unbroken roadway, elevating it into a place of national importance as ``America's Main Street.'' As the home to every president since John Adams, the White House has become one of Pennsylvania Avenue's ``crown jewels'' and a primary destination of visitors to the Nation's Capital; today, ``the People's House'' is host to 1.5 million tourists annually. Given its prominent location on Pennsylvania Avenue and its proximity to the People, the White House has become a powerful symbol of freedom, openness, and an individual's access to their government. And so you can imagine the disappointment of many when your order of May 20, 1995 closed Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic for two blocks in front of the White House. By impeding access and imposing hardships upon tourists, residents of the District, commuters, and local business owners and their customers, the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue has drastically altered L'Enfant's historic city plan, replacing the openness of the area surrounding the White House with barricades, additional security checkpoints, and an atmosphere of fear and distrust. The closure has come with not only an emotional cost, but a financial cost as well--both to the taxpayers, who have been asked to bear the burden of funding new security measures along Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House, and for those who are dependent upon access to the avenue for their livelihood. I acknowledge that the security of the President of the United States is paramount and a matter not to be taken lightly, but I ask you to recognize that the need to ensure the president's safety must be balanced with the expectation of freedom inherent in a democracy. I believe the present situation is tilted far to heavily toward security at freedom's expense. In the year since the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue, the calls for its reopening have grown louder. There is a deep perception among many Americans that the closing was an emotional reaction--a decision rendered too quickly, initiated out of fear fueled by the terrible disaster in Oklahoma City. I ask you to reconsider a decision made amidst such emotion, and replace it with one of reasoned courage. By ordering the reopening of Pennsylvania Avenue by May 17, 1996, you have the power to undo a costly mistake, return the avenue to the people, and guarantee that its closure will not mark its first anniversary. Sincerely, Rod Grams, U.S. Senate. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as if in morning business for up to 20 minutes.