Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. It is part A. Congress delivered tax relief, Medicare and welfare reform, and a balanced budget to the White House just as we promised the American people we would, and they were all returned to us ``V-O-A''--``vetoed on arrival.'' So much for high school geometry. What I have come to realize, Mr. President, is that sometimes, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line at all, but the route with the least congestion. What I want to assure my fellow Americans is that from now on, Congress will follow whatever line takes us where we need to go, and if that means bypassing the gridlock on Pennsylvania Avenue at the White House, so be it. We will not be deterred from pursuing the principles of individual freedom and restraint in Government that have already brought us this far. We moved an important step forward recently with the passage of the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act. The President may have vetoed our balanced budget plan, but our downpayment on it moves us $30 billion closer to a balanced budget, and keeps our children from going another $30 billion in debt, by eliminating a host of wasteful Government programs. It was not what the President wanted. In fact, his latest budget does not make any serious reductions in Government spending until the year 2000. But Congress controls the Nation's purse strings and in this political climate, Congress must start taking these small steps in order to reach our larger goals. One of the papers in my home State interviewed a number of Minnesotans last week and asked what they thought about Congress and the President and our accomplishments of the past year. I thought the comments made by the mayor of Woodbury were the most insightful. He said, We watch with interest but quite a bit of disappointment. They are more concerned out there with their political one- upmanship, political brinkmanship, political hassle of each other. There is a big gap in quality leadership. Those are the very same thoughts being reflected in the kind of polls we saw in the Washington Post. Mr. President, if we are going to begin restoring the people's faith in their Government, we are going to have to earn it through quality leadership, and we are going to have to do a better job of communicating our successes. Every American needs to know that this Senate passed a balanced budget. More importantly, every American needs to know that we are not giving up until President Clinton has signed a balanced budget into law. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as the Nation's farmers look ahead to the new planting season, I rise today in support of moving forward on much- needed farm bill legislation. Over the past year, I have met with farmers, businesses, bankers, and community leaders across Minnesota. They have told me of the urgent need to develop a farm bill which will show them the direction farm policy will move over the next couple of years. Clearly, our farmers and agribusinesses deserve a reasonable and responsible roadmap of the Nation's long-term agricultural policy. If Washington continues to delay action, decisions about planting, equipment purchases, fertilizer and seed sales, and credit hang in the balance. And as a result, our agricultural economy will suffer. This current predicament is a perfect example of how Government interference in the area of agriculture has taken its toll on the productivity of our farmers, agribusinesses, and the other sectors of our economy which depend on them. By expanding the role of Government so deeply into the business of farming, Washington has taken much of the decisionmaking authority away from the real experts--those who have planted, plowed, and harvested for generations--and handed it over to bureaucrats, some of whom are thousands of miles away from America's heartland. I have always said with pride that Minnesota's farmers are among the most productive in the world. Historically, Minnesota agriculture has ranked first in sugarbeet production, third in spring wheat and sunflower production, fourth in barley and oat production, sixth in corn production, third in swine products, and second in turkey processing. Of course, Minnesota has always been among the Nation's leaders in milk and cheese production. It is also quickly becoming a leading exporter of raw and value-added products. But there is so much more that our farmers can do, if only we would free them from the burdens of inflexible regulations, high taxes, and the overreaching arm of Government. Government should not get in the way of farmers. It should set a level playing field so that farmers from across the country can compete fairly with each other, regardless of geographic region or commodity item. We owe it to our farmers to do nothing less--and nothing more. We also owe it to the American taxpayers--the people who pay for the jumbled agricultural policy Washington has created--to fix the failed policies of the past and ensure that their tax dollars are put to work most efficiently. First and foremost, we must provide greater flexibility for our farmers. Current Federal policies dictate decades-old planting patterns set by Washington and require every farmer to visit USDA annually to comply with its seemingly endless paperwork requirements. Today, the Senate can help alleviate some of those burdens by passing a bold, new approach called the Agricultural Market Transition Act. This innovative plan, initially crafted by Majority Leader Dole, Agriculture Committee Chairman Lugar and other members of the Agriculture Committee, offers farmers the flexibility they will need to remain strong into the next century. Under this proposal, farmers can plant for what the marketplace demands, not what traditional Government crop subsidies have dictated. It would give farmers in Minnesota additional flexibility in meeting the needs of value-added cooperatives and their customers who use products like ethanol. This bill also simplifies paperwork requirements for farmers. Instead of the current annual paperwork load they face today, passage of this legislation means many farmers may only need to visit the local CFSA once as part of a 7-year contract. The Agricultural Marketing Transition Act also gives farmers the needed certainty of a fixed, 7-year payment with fixed parameters. Many farmers in Minnesota, especially in the younger generation, need this certainty for long-term loans and other financial decisions. For these and other reasons, farm groups in Minnesota, such as the wheat growers, barley growers, corn growers, bean growers, the Minnesota Farm Bureau, and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture have endorsed passage of this bill. They know it will give them the flexibility and the opportunity for long-term growth potential in farm income. But while I enthusiastically support much of this bill because it helps both Minnesota's farm community and the American taxpayer, I must raise my strong concerns about its failure to enact substantial progress in the area of dairy reform. Having sought the counsel of Minnesota's dairy industry, I am well aware of the problems caused for milk producers, taxpayers, and consumers by our archaic dairy program. For instance, Federal milk marketing orders have helped cause the loss of thousands of dairy farms in Minnesota alone over the last decade. Under this troubled business climate, Minnesota continues to lose an average of nearly three dairy farms per day. In addition, the Minnesota dairy industry is adamantly opposed to the Northeast Dairy Compact. I firmly believe this well-intentioned proposal will lead to a regional balkanization of the dairy industry and threatens to make our dairy program even more unwieldy for the dairy processors and producers that I represent. Instead of letting protectionism get in the way of our dairy producers, we should begin enacting long-term, common-sense reforms that deregulate the Federal Dairy Program. I understand that the regional politics currently tying up this bill prevent us from making these long-term dairy reforms. At the very least, however, I believe we should consolidate milk marketing orders, eliminate costly producer assessments, and reduce the price supports for dairy commodities to a reasonable level. By establishing a level playing field for dairy producers, we can dramatically improve and preserve a vital segment of our agriculture industry as a whole. I hope to have the commitment of the chairman and the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee to work with me in the future on these and other reforms. Enacting a more productive farm policy must be our goal, and we can begin this process by freeing farmers from Government interference, encouraging the use of market discipline in farm decision-making, while at the same time protecting the American taxpayers. This bill makes that important first step and gives our farmers, small business owners, and lenders what they need--a roadmap to guide them in the important decisions ahead. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and the cloture motion before us today. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise at this time to discuss an amendment that had been filed by Senator Kennedy to S. 1521, the farm bill. Like the Senator from Massachusetts, and also the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum, I do support health care reform--specifically, improvements such as health insurance portability and putting an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions. As both a Member of the House and the Senate, I have worked for such reforms, and I look forward to supporting such legislation in the near future. But as they say, timing is everything. There are undoubtedly many people watching the Senate asking themselves what the Senator from Massachusetts is up to. I must confess to being one of them. The purpose of the farm bill was to give our Nation's farmers and the people they work with a clear roadmap of Federal farm policy with which to make the decisions this year about planting, equipment purchases, and loans. Given that that question remains, why would the Senator have been offering an amendment dealing with health insurance to the farm bill? In all honesty, I still do not know. It does not make sense. Unfortunately, a lot of what goes on sometimes does not make a lot of sense. For example, last Thursday night, a hotline call from the majority leader's office was made to find out if there were any objections to bringing up for consideration the Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance legislation--the very subject matter of the Senator's amendment filed by the Senator from Massachusetts. Upon receiving this call, I requested more time to review the legislation. As a Senator from Minnesota, I have always taken my responsibility to study the legislation considered by the Senate seriously--to examine its implications, to detect any possible unforeseen consequences, and to evaluate it on the basis of the needs and concerns of the people I represent--the taxpayers of Minnesota. This is the way we Minnesotans make our decisions--carefully and thoughtfully. We do not have a reputation for simply rubberstamping the bills that affect us and the rest of the Nation. When we put our seal of approval on something, it is done with the utmost care and thought. Perhaps this is a bigger deal in Minnesota than it is in Washington. But it should not be. As a result, I simply asked that the request for a time agreement wait until I had had a chance to conduct my review. But as usual, things have been blown out of proportion, and as a result, we may be faced with the Kennedy amendment--a proposal that should make as little sense in Washington as it does in Minnesota. Having studied the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation, I have come to the conclusion that it would be counterproductive to take this matter up right now at a time when the Federal Government has much unfinished business left on its plate. As a taxpayer, I can not understand why the Senate would move to the issue of health insurance reform, without some assurances to the American people that we and the President will complete the business before us--balancing the budget, saving Medicare from bankruptcy, providing tax relief to taxpaying families so they can afford insurance, and reforming the welfare system. Before we go on to other issues and other agendas, shouldn't all of us--Republicans and Democrats--make every effort possible to carry out the taxpayer's agenda? This question is even more critical, given that the President's own health care financing administration projects that the Medicare Program, for the first time in 23 years, faces a deficit and will go bankrupt sooner than anyone had previously predicted. Does it make any sense to rush ahead on health insurance reform at a time when the Medicare Program faces insolvency? I think not. Back in November, Congress gave President Clinton an opportunity to address this problem--by passing a Medicare reform proposal which would have saved the trust fund from bankruptcy, while expanding health care options available to senior citizens. Now, they say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure-- and had the President followed this sound advice and signed the bill, we would not be in this mess in the first place. Well, he did not sign the bill, we are in this mess, and now some Members of the Senate want to move ahead on their agenda without addressing the Medicare crisis. These some Members want to move ahead on their agenda without addressing the primary concerns of the taxpayers, such as the balanced budget, tax relief, and welfare reform. Former Speaker Sam Rayburn used to say, ``To get along, go along.'' Well, I think we have been going along for too long in this Chamber, and it has been at the expense of taxpayers and senior citizens. Their needs must be heard. For this reason, I intend to offer a substitute to the Kennedy amendment--it simply requires that Congress and the President will first resolve the current Medicare crisis and put the program on a path toward solvency before turning to any other health care legislation. In doing so, we will give our assurance to taxpayers and senior citizens that the Senate will face this crisis directly and not turn its back on the people we represent. In addition, I will ask that the unanimous-consent agreement on consideration of the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill be amended such that consideration of the bill will not take place until after April 15--tax day. At the very least, Congress and the President can use this time to do what we were elected to do--balance the budget, reform welfare, and provide tax relief for middle-class Americans. To those who say it cannot be done, I say the tools are there--they have been all year. What Washington lacks is the will to do its job. Maybe today, we can help turn this around and get back to doing the people's business in a way that makes sense both here in Washington and across the country.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, too often here in Washington, politicians come to town with a mission but end up coming down with a severe case of Beltway fever. They get caught up in the unreal atmosphere of this place and eventually forget what it was that first propelled them into public service. They shut themselves away in their Senate or House offices or even in the Oval Office. They spend their time hobnobbing with their new-found Washington friends. And after awhile, they just lose touch with the folks who sent them here. They think they are doing ``the people's business,'' but in truth, they are no longer speaking for the people at all. The 11 Members of the Senate freshman class came to town with a mission, too, a mandate given to us by the voters. We met often as a group last year to track our progress. And as 1995 came to a close, we took a step back and began asking ourselves some pretty tough questions, such as: What is the mood of the country? What are people saying about Congress and the decisions we freshmen faced in our first year in the Senate? Did we really hear the message we thought we heard in November 1994, when the voters sent us here to balance the budget to get Government spending under control, to deliver middle-class tax relief, and protect and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid? Most importantly, is the message that brought this freshman class to the Senate in 1994 still alive and well in 1996? We thought we knew the answers, and we knew we had delivered on each one of our promises, but after being in Washington and of course, debating those very important questions over the past year, we thought it was time for a reality check. So last week, at the urging of my good friend, Senator Abraham from Michigan, nine Members of the freshman class took to the road to take our message directly to the people and bring the people's message back with us to Washington. We visited eight cities over 4 days. What we saw and heard truly opened our eyes and, I believe, reaffirmed our mission. In Philadelphia, we toured an empowerment zone and shared ideas on how to rebuild our troubled inner cities. The section of north Philadelphia we visited is a model for the concept that restoring neighborhoods means creating incentives for businesses to locate in urban areas. The Federal Government has made a difference, local officials told us, but the incentive is tax relief for these areas to attract businesses and jobs. In Knoxville, 300 concerned citizens packed the auditorium at West High School for a town meeting. They cheered our progress on a balanced budget and called on us--and forcefully I might add--not to give up. In Columbus, at a crime forum, we met with police, other law- enforcement officials, and victims of crime who shared how Washington can play an important role in making local neighborhoods safer. Rain, sleet, snow, and even a blizzard warning could not stop a crowd from attending my town meeting in Minneapolis. We had a frank and, I believe, lively discussion covering a tremendous range of issues and the audience enthusiastically applauded our efforts to shrink the size and scope of government and return power to the States. Employees at the Emerson Electric Co. in St. Louis sat down with us to talk about a balanced budget and just what it would mean for themselves and their families. It was heartening to hear their words of support, especially since our budget is specifically targeted at improving their lives, and the lives of every hard-working, taxpaying, middle-class American family. In Tulsa, we met with small business owners--the men and women who create the jobs on Main Street--for a roundtable discussion organized by the Metropolitan Tulsa Chamber of Commerce. Again, they thanked the Members of the 104th Congress for taking such a strong lead in bringing job providers relief from the stranglehold of Federal regulations and mandates. Our whirlwind tour ended in Cheyenne, with a final opportunity to hear from the voters at a town hall meeting at the Cheyenne Civic Center. At each stop, the people thanked us for taking our message directly to them and bypassing the curtain of misinformation draped over the issues by the congressional Democratic leadership, the White House, and too often, the media. They repeatedly shared their frustrations at hearing only one side of the budget debate. And at each stop, they asked ``why can't you reach a compromise with the President on a balanced budget?'' The President's latest budget plan--the first plan of his that actually balances in 7 years--is similar to the four other budget plans he sent to Capitol Hill in the last year which, by the way, got no votes in the House and Senate. Throughout these weeks and weeks of budget negotiations, he has given up very little while Republicans have moved dramatically to help spur an agreement. The President's budget cuts around the edges, but does not reform a thing. And I think we can say in one word the President's budget is a sham. It does not reverse the kind of wild overspending that will continue to drag this Nation deeper into debt. Spending remains unchecked under his latest plan, and $1 out of every $6 the President claims in deficit reduction comes not from cuts in spending, but from raising new revenue, new taxes. It does not save Medicare and provide the choices for seniors our plan offers. Under the Clinton plan, Medicare remains a relic from 1960's that no longer works in the 1990's. His budget does not reform Medicaid, either. We say let the States run Medicaid, and they will do a better job. The President's plan says, again, Washington has all the answers. He does not offer meaningful tax relief. His tax cuts amount to only token tax relief, and with $66 billion in new taxes, the President's budget does nothing to reduce the tax liability of the country. His version of the $500-per-child tax credit is slowly phased in and then eliminated in 2002, and applies only to children 12 years old and younger. He does not make fundamental changes in welfare to control spending. In fact, his welfare proposals spend $20 billion more than the bipartisan welfare bill passed by Congress. The President does not ``end welfare as we know it,'' he extends welfare as we know it. In reality, the President's budget plan is just a Band-Aid on a wound that is demanding emergency surgery. Yank off the Band-Aid after 7 years and the wound will not be healed, it will have festered and grown. Mr. President, it will do no good to balance the budget in 2002 if it all unravels in 2003. And without a solid framework to work from, that is precisely where we would be heading under the President's version of a balanced budget. That is how the freshman class answered the question each time we were asked why we have not been able to reach a budget compromise. We will not compromise our principles. No budget is better than a bad budget. The President is right when he says the debate over the Federal budget is no longer just about dollars. It is about dollars and about something far more important: the future direction of this Nation, and which governing philosophy ought to lead us there. The President says maybe we should wait until the next election and let the people decide what direction they want their Government to take. But the taxpayers we met with in Knoxville, and Philadelphia, and Minneapolis, and Tulsa last week told us that is the change they thought they voted for in November 1994, when they turned this Government around by electing a new majority in Congress. You know, President Clinton is going to come here to the Capitol tonight to deliver what will undoubtedly be a passionate speech on the State of the Union. As we all know, he can be an impressive speaker. He will speak fervently and forcefully and, with any luck, he will wrap up in time for Sunday's Super Bowl kickoff. I hope that what we hear tonight is a message of leadership, an acknowledgement of the awesome responsibility with which a President is entrusted, and a willingness to put aside a narrow political agenda in order to do what is best for the American people. Only great leadership will lead this Nation toward the great days that await us. What I am afraid we will get instead is a campaign event--the great kick-off to Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign. Judging by the folks we met around the country last week, he may have a tougher go of it than he thinks in the weeks and months ahead because at every stop on our freshman tour, Americans offered us their full support. ``Do not back down,'' ``Hold the line,'' they said. ``Get the budget balanced, but do it right.'' A lot of people told us they would be willing to wait a year for a responsible budget agreement, if that is what it takes. Maybe then, they said, somebody a little more serious about balancing the budget will be occupying the Oval Office. And so the revolution of 1994 continues, Mr. President. That is the strong message my freshman colleagues and I bring with us back to Washington. And for our colleagues who may not have ventured beyond the confines of the Beltway recently, that is the message the American people are demanding we do not forget. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, over the past several weeks, my office has received many telephone calls from concerned Minnesotans regarding the partial shutdown of the Federal Government and the lack of funding which has resulted for the program which brings nannies from foreign countries into America. Nannies have been coming to the United States through the Au Pair program, a cultural exchange program run by the United States Information Agency (USIA) which oversees the matching of young people from abroad with American families in need of live-in babysitters. Approximately 13,000 young adults have participated in this program over the years and 10,000 American families have benefitted from the helping hands these visiting babysitters provide. They are paid a weekly salary of $115 plus room and board for their services. When its appropriations expired at the end of the last fiscal year on September 30, the entire Au Pair program was put into limbo until it could be funded again. It had been included in three separate appropriations bills, but each has failed to become law due to objections over issues unrelated to the Au Pair program. On December 11, Senator Helms recognized the pressing nature of the situation and introduced S. 1465, legislation funding and extending the Au Pair program for 2 years. The bill passed the Senate on December 13 and a related measure was introduced in the House that same day. It was passed by voice vote on December 18. Late Wednesday night, this legislation was delivered to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But now, 3 days later, it continues to sit on the President's desk awaiting his signature. Furthermore, while many families wait, there has been no indication yet as to whether the President will sign or veto this bill. Therefore, I call on the President to swiftly review this matter, to continue the care and attention given to this issue by Congress, and to sign S. 1465 without delay. This is a bill that swiftly passed both Chambers; on behalf of the families that await its enactment, it deserves equally swift consideration by the White House.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. The senior Senator.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Chair very much, and I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. About 10 minutes. I would defer to the Senator from Rhode Island making a statement dealing with this pending business ahead of my statement.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I ask the manager of the bill if I could have up to 10 minutes?

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R. 4, the Work Opportunity Act of 1995, and I commend the majority leader and my colleagues for the months of concentrated effort it took to bring us to this point. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill tonight. Mr. President, since the beginning of the 104th Congress, we have been debating the state of this Nation's welfare system. Both sides of the aisle recognize that the system is broken. It encourages illegitimacy. It does not recognize the importance of marriage and family. It offers no hope or opportunity for those Americans who are trapped within its layers of bureaucracy. And it was not supposed to be this way. After signing the 1964 Welfare Act, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, ``We are not content to accept the endless growth of relief rolls or welfare rolls,'' and he promised the American people that ``the days of the dole in our country are numbered.'' The New York Times predicted the legislation would lead to ``the restoration of individual dignity and the long-run reduction of the need for government help.'' In 1964, America's taxpayers invested $947 million to support welfare recipients--an investment which President Johnson declared would eventually ``result in savings to the country and especially to the local taxpayers'' through reductions in welfare caseloads, health care costs, and the crime rate. But yet, 30 years later, none of those predictions have materialized, and the failure of the welfare system continues to devastate millions of Americans every day--both the families who receive welfare benefits and the taxpayers who subsidize them. Despite a $5.4 trillion investment in welfare programs since 1964, at an average annual cost that had risen to $3,357 per taxpaying household by 1993: One in three children in the U.S. today is born out-of-wedlock; One child in seven is being raised on welfare through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program; and Our crime rate has increased 280 percent. Mr. President, those are the kinds of devastating statistics which until recently have been ignored by the bureaucratic establishment in Washington, but those are the statistics H.R. 4 will finally address. By rewriting Federal policies and working in close partnership with the States, we can create a welfare system which will effectively respond to the needs of those who depend on it--at the same time to protect the taxpayers. This bipartisan welfare conference report sets in place the framework for meeting those needs by offering individuals who are down on their luck some opportunity, self-respect and most importantly, the ability to take control of their own lives. And yes, we will ask something of them in return. The most significant change in our welfare system will be the requirement that able-bodied individuals put in 20 hours of work every week before they receive assistance from America's taxpayers. Mr. President, my colleagues and I have come to the floor repeatedly this session to suggest that our present welfare system promotes dependency by discouraging recipients from working, but nothing sums up the problem more perfectly than a story which appeared just last month in the Baltimore Sun. It seems that the Baltimore regional office of the Salvation Army is having trouble this year recruiting volunteer bell ringers to staff the red kettles that have become a symbol of the holiday season. So they decided to pay for the help--$5 an hour, thinking it would give people on public assistance the opportunity to earn some money. Here is where the Baltimore Sun picks up the story: The Frederick chapter ran a help-wanted ad for bell ringers in the local paper for a week but received only four applications. It then approached an agency that provides temporary workers. The agency interviewed 25 people for the bell ringing job, but no one wanted to do it. One person accepted the job at a second temporary help agency. ``I'm beating my head against the wall,'' Captain Mallard said. That is Butch Mallard, commander of the Salvation Army in Frederick, MD: I don't know if people don't want to work outside, or that they just don't want to work for $5 an hour when they can stay home and get that much from the government. Mr. President, the Salvation Army has found out what we have been saying all along: the government makes it so easy for a welfare recipient to skip the work and continue collecting a federal check that there is absolutely no incentive to ever get out of the house and find a job. And if someone actually takes the initiative to take a job--perhaps as a bell ringer--they risk forfeiting their welfare benefits entirely. During Senate consideration of the Work Opportunity Act, Senator Shelby and I joined forces with the majority leader to ensure that welfare recipients receive benefits only after they work. We believe welfare recipients should be held to the same standards, the same work ethic, to which America's taxpayers are held. American taxpayers are putting in at least 40 hours on the job each week--and are sometimes forced to take on an additional job or work overtime hours just to make ends meet. And all the while, they have been generously providing welfare recipients with cash and benefit assistance, while the only thing we ask of welfare recipients is to provide an address where we can mail their checks. Under the Grams-Shelby pay-for-performance amendment which was adopted earlier this year, this practice will end. Welfare recipients will be required to work before they receive any cash assistance. Simply put, our amendment stipulates that welfare recipients will receive financial assistance from the taxpayers only for the number of hours they are actually engaged in a work activity. A work activity includes: a private sector job, on-the-job-training, a subsidized job, workfare, community service, job search limited to 4 weeks, and vocational education limited to 1 year. A welfare recipient is required to required to work 20 hours a week-- if they only put in 15 hours in a particular week, they will only receive cash assistance for those 15 hours of work. Many of my colleagues have expressed their support for these tough work requirements and the need for the pay-for-performance amendment. But some Members believe our original bill did not include adequate funding to provide child care while parents were working. These concerns were raised despite the fact that the Senate bill dedicated $8 billion toward child care services. But in order to address the concerns that $8 billion is still not enough, the conference report increases child care funding to $18 billion. As it has in the past, safeguarding the well-being of children will continue to remain a primary concern of the re-focused welfare system our bill will create. I am proud that we have taken additional steps through this conference report to ensure our children's readiness, and ability, to learn. Throughout the last year, I have been meeting with parents, educators, nutrition experts and pediatricians who are concerned about the future of Federal nutrition standards. Many of them have pointed out that unless children receive and maintain a proper level of nutrition, they will perform significantly lower than their learning potential. And so I have worked to ensure that medically devised Federal nutrition standards, established by the National Advisory Council on Maternal, Infant and Fetal Nutrition, are maintained under this legislation. I am pleased that my colleagues have joined me in recognizing the need for these uniform standards by including them in this bill. Mr. President, our bill also recognizes that officials elected locally--our state legislators and governors--are more capable than their representatives in far-away Washington to administer effective programs on the State and local level. And so this welfare reform legislation will give States like Minnesota the flexibility they need to develop innovative programs to assist those who need help most. States will no longer have to ask Washington for permission to establish successful programs like the Minnesota family investment plan. States will finally be able to save money and use it wisely, rather than being forced to spend it on the wasteful paperwork Washington requires them to fill out. Mr. President, the bipartisan legislation before us today to overhaul our failed welfare system is the first positive step away from a system which has held nearly three generations hostage with little hope of escape. Only be enacting this legislation can we offer these Americans a way out and a way up. I challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and the President, and the American people themselves, to take this message to heart: Government cannot solve all our problems. As Americans, we need to look within ourselves rather than continuing to look to Washington for solutions. Does anybody really believe the Federal Government embodies compassion, that it has a heart? Of course not--those are qualities found only outside Washington, in America's communities. Mr. President, there is no one I can think of who better exemplifies heart and compassion than Corla Wilson-Hawkins, and I was so fortunate to have had the opportunity to meet her recently. She was one of 21 recipients of the 1995 National Caring Awards for her outstanding volunteer service to her community. Corla is known as ``Mama Hawk'' because, more than anything else, she has become a second mother to hundreds of schoolchildren in her west- side Chicago community, children who, without her guidance, might go without meals, or homes, or a loving hug. Mama Hawk gives them all that and more, and she and the many, many other caring Americans just like her represent the good we can accomplish when ordinary folks look inward, not to the government--and follow their hearts, not the trail of tax dollars to Washington. Mama Hawk tells a story that illustrates better than I ever could how the present welfare system has permeated our culture and become as ingrained as the very problems it was originally created to solve. These are her words. When I first started teaching, I asked my kids, what did they want to be when they grew up? What kind of job they wanted. Most of them said they wanted to be on public aid. I was a little stunned. I said, ``Public aid--I didn't realize that was a form of employment.'' They said, ``Well, our mom's on public aid. They make a lot of money and, if you have a baby, they get a raise.'' Mr. President, that is the perception, maybe even the reality, we're fighting to change with our vote today on this historic conference report. While there is more work to accomplish, this bill is a good first step toward truly ending welfare as we know it. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the future to finish the good work we have started today.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. As a conferee for this bill, I am here on the floor today to also join those others in urging my colleagues to vote to override the President's--what I consider--ill-advised veto of the conference report on securities litigation reform. Back on December 5, 65 of us voted in favor of the conference report that the President has now vetoed. Mr. President, 69 of us voted for S. 240, which was substantially similar to the conference report. Now, the principal authors of this legislation are Senators D'Amato, Senator Dodd, and Senator Domenici. These Senators put aside their political and partisan differences to do something right for small investors, for workers and for the consumer. All of us did. When you have legislation that is authored and supported by the general chairman of the Democratic National Committee and the chairman of the Republican Senatorial Committee, I believe that is what you would call compromise. When you have almost 70 Senators from both sides of the aisle voting for this legislation, that is also called compromise. So, why did the President veto this measure? Well, in his letter accompanying the veto, the President said that he wants to protect innocent investors from being defrauded. Well, this legislation protects those investors. It preserves the right of these investors who are truly victimized by securities fraud, but it does much more than that, as well. It also will protect the worker who is out there and worried about being laid off because his employer had to pay attorney's fees instead of being able to pay his salary. It will help the consumer who has to pay higher prices for products today because of the hidden costs of frivolous legislation and litigation. It will pay off for the legitimate investors and for the pensioners whose life savings are being jeopardized by strike-suit attorneys. Finally, it will also benefit the thousands of honest, hard-working attorneys who have watched the public image of their profession being tarnished by a few greedy quick change artists. It is also for the sake of those Americans that we have put in long hours of hard work to craft what I believe is a very balanced and reasonable bill. The only people who will lose under this legislation are the small class of attorneys who have used professional plaintiffs to file frivolous and meritless suits, again just to make a quick dollar. They use joint and several liability to bring secondary defendants into their cases simply to try and extort a higher settlement out of them as well. Now, the social costs of these suits are very, very high. Again, they would result in fewer jobs because employers would be paying high costs for frivolous litigation, rather than being able to put that money where it would make a difference, and that is in the higher salaries or more jobs. Higher prices for the consumers who end up having to pay these costs because they are passed along in the cost of doing business. They go into the products and the services that these people provide, so consumers end up paying more because, again, of the costs-- the hidden costs--of frivolous litigation, and it has diminished returns for the innocent investors. The very investors that the President says he wants to help protect are the ones who would benefit from this bill, as well. What do investors get in return for those abusive lawsuits? In the past they have received about 6 cents on the dollar that has gone back to the victims. The rest has gone into litigation, legal expenses and lawyer's fees. Who is the President really trying to protect? Investors, the consumers, or the workers, or a small group of unethical lawyers? I think that answer was obvious. Legislation is not meant to protect political constituencies. When we do the work of the people we should think of what the voters called for in the last election--not the commercials that consultants will be running in the next election. That is not what the President did when he vetoed this bill. We should not stand for it as well. For those reasons and for the sake of the small investors and the consumers, the job creators and the workers, we should override this veto, because if the White House will not stand up for these individuals, who will? We must. I believe that we will. Again, I urge my colleagues to override the veto and to enact the commonsense legal reform that is contained in this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I know this is a very important debate that is going on dealing with securities litigation, but there is also an important debate going on today and has been going on for months, and that is dealing with the budget. The string of budgets that have been coming out of the White House lately reminds me of those movies called ``Nightmare on Elm Street.'' They have a few good scares, mixed with a lot of unintentional comedy. The emphasis clearly is on quantity, not quality, and they offer few, if any, redeeming values. There have been so many of them that after a while, you just start losing count. Just to recap: We are talking budgets. We have had Clinton I. That failed in the Senate 99 to 0; Clinton II that did not get a single vote in the Senate as well, Republican or Democrat; Clinton III, that one was pulled before we could even vote on it; And just last Friday, Clinton IV. The Senate did not waste our time on it after the House late Wednesday dealt a resounding blow by defeating it on a bipartisan vote of 412 to 0. Four budgets submitted by President Clinton, four major disappointments, and not one vote from a single Member of this Congress to support any of them. What is it about the President's vision of a balanced budget that is so different from everyone else's? By refusing to use honest budget numbers certified by the Congressional Budget Office, the President's budgets have failed the first true test of a balanced budget: They never come close to being balanced. Yet, there are encouraging signs that the White House is shifting its ever-shifting budget policy and now wants to cooperate with Congress to produce the kind of budget plan that the American people are demanding: A balanced budget attainable by the year 2002 that reaches balance by cutting the growth of Federal spending and does not raise taxes, that, in fact, cuts taxes. Following his meeting Tuesday afternoon with Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich, I welcome the news that President Clinton has finally agreed to work with us, using the economic projections of the CBO, to craft a plan that will bring the Federal budget into balance within 7 years. It was his refusal to commit to such a basic promise 6 days ago that, once again, led to a Government shutdown, this time idling a quarter of a million Federal employees. They, and the American people who are forced to pay the salaries of workers who are not allowed to work when the Government shuts down, ought to be furious that the President would let this happen, especially so close to the holidays. I hope that by opening the door to now legitimate budget negotiations, the President will sign an agreement reopening the Government and sending these people back to work immediately. As for the balanced budget plan itself, President Clinton was quoted this week as saying, ``I hope we can resolve this situation and give the American people their Government back by Christmas. We also should give them a balanced budget that reflects our values of opportunity, respecting our duty to our parents and our children, building strong communities and a strong America.'' I could not agree more with the President, but it seems he is doing his Christmas shopping just a little late this year. By so far denying the American people the benefits of a balanced budget, he is making the goals that we share, those expanded opportunities, strong communities and a strong America, a lot more difficult to reach. Both the businesses lining Main Street and the Americans who spend their dollars in them are nervous, wondering if Washington is, once again, going to let them down. Monday's drop of more than 100 points in the stock market--and that is the worst drop in the market in 4 years--and yesterday's 50-point dive is a clear sign that a skittish business community is having real doubts that Washington is serious about ever balancing the Federal budget. That lack of a balanced budget is causing real economic hardship for American families, and individuals as well, because for the residents of my home State of Minnesota, the benefits that they would reap from our balanced budget legislation would be deep and it would be lasting. The statistics tell it all. In fact, if President Clinton had signed the Balanced Budget Act that we originally sent him last month, the average Minnesotan would be saving right now $2,600 a year from lower mortgage payments; over $1,000 over the life of a 4-year loan of a car worth $15,000; nearly $1,900 on the life of a 10-year student loan of about $11,000; and over $300 every year from lower State taxes due to lower State and local interest payments; and also, Mr. President, nearly $600 a year from lower interest payments on a student loan. If President Clinton had signed the Balanced Budget Act, Minnesota families would have received a tax credit as well, a tax credit that would have helped over 529,000 Minnesota taxpayers with over 1 million dependents. That is more than $477 million of their own money every year these working families would have been allowed to keep. The tax credit would have completely eliminated the Federal income tax bill for over 45,000 Minnesotans, and that is another $38 million every year that would stay with these working families. The tax credit would have paid for nearly 4 years of tuition at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities campus if the parents were able to bank the $500 per child tax credit for 18 years. Or the tax credit could have saved average Minnesota families enough to buy 3 months of groceries or make 1\1/2\ mortgage payments, or pay electric bills for 11 months. Mr. President, the people are calling on this Congress, this President, to balance the budget because they have heard those same old statistics and it sounds pretty good to them. Of course, the other component of our budget plan is our $245 billion package of tax relief, and there are real concerns outside Washington that it, the centerpiece of our budget, may be negotiated away. I would like to show on the chart where we stand on tax relief compared to spending and how much has already been negotiated away over these last couple of months. We started out spending $11.2 trillion. That has grown to the latest Clinton budget of over $12.4 trillion. So spending has continued to increase under these budget plans. But at the same time, they continue to whittle away at the tax relief for Americans. It started out at $354 billion of tax relief over 7 years in the House plan to $245 billion under the Senate plan and now the Clinton budget wants to cut this back to $78 billion, or even less. So we can see over months of negotiations which way they are headed. It is the same old scenario: More spending, but take it away from taxpayers, and less tax relief. I urge the budget negotiators to stand firm in their commitment to the taxpayers of this Nation to let them keep more of the dollars that we are routinely snatching out of their pockets. We need to stop Washington's nasty habit of taking money out of the checkbooks of taxpayers and putting them into the checkbooks of politicians. I remind my colleagues that $245 billion is a lot of money to the taxpayers who finance this Government, who pick up the tab for wasteful and often extravagant schemes that Congress is too often eager to throw dollars at. Mr. President, $245 billion means a tax credit of $500 per child for 55 million American families. It means cutting the capital gains tax so that farmers and other family businesses are not so badly penalized when it comes time to pass along their assets to another generation. It means eliminating the marriage penalty and ending the discrimination against those who take on the awesome responsibility of coming together as a family. It means creating an adoption credit that will, hopefully, bring more children into loving and nurturing homes. It means promoting savings by expanding individual retirement accounts. While $245 billion is a huge sum of money, it is just a small, 1.5 percent, speck of the more than $12 trillion that Congress will spend over the next 7 years. Congress is not happy with 98.5 percent. They want 100 percent. They do not want the taxpayers to have even that small amount. Mr. President, if the Government is so addicted to spending that it will not survive without that 1.5 percent, well, that is a pretty strong commentary on the sorry state of things in Washington. Despite the protests of the President and some of my colleagues who will not give up a penny of the people's dollars without a fight, the Government will survive under our balanced budget plan. It will survive and the taxpayers will thrive. To be successful, this Congress, however, cannot give in. Mr. President, there is a movie that has become very popular during the holiday season. I believe it is so beloved because it shares a simple, moving message about the power that each of us has to profoundly influence our world. ``It's a Wonderful Life'' is the name of this film. It was played on television just last weekend, in fact, and I am certain that most all of my colleagues have watched it and take its message to heart. It is about a good man, George Bailey, who reaches a difficult point in his life and begins to question his very existence. With the help of his guardian angel, Clarence, George Bailey is given the opportunity to see the difference he would have been able to make in the lives of family, friends, and his neighbors in Bedford Falls, and it was a revelation, because he did not realize how much he had changed their lives forever. Mr. President, we have an opportunity in 1995 to forever change the lives of each and every American by passing a balanced budget. And we will not need a guardian angel to show us what we have accomplished, because 10 years from now, we will be able to see for ourselves, everywhere we look, the result of our dedication to this dream: more jobs, higher salaries, cheaper loans that make homes, schooling, and transportation more affordable. A better, stronger America for the future. The next 2 weeks will tell the story. Is 1995 going to mark the beginning of ``A Wonderful Life'' for America's children and grandchildren? Or just another ``Nightmare on Elm Street'' sequel? Congress and the President have the power to decide, and I urge them to put that power to work on behalf of all Americans and enact a balanced budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 21, 1995 at 10 a.m. in SD- 226.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 21, 1995, at 2 p.m., in room 226 Senate Dirksen Office Building to consider nominations.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 21, 1995, for purposes of conducting a full committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 21, 1995, immediately following the first rollcall vote occurring after 2 p.m.; if no vote has occurred between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m., the meeting will be held at 4 p.m.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as a member of the special committee to investigate Whitewater, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support Senate Resolution 199. For months, our committee has been trying to get to the bottom of the controversial affair known as Whitewater--the unsavory Arkansas land development deal whose principal investors included the President and the First Lady and which contributed in large part to the $60 million failure of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. This committee was initially convened to investigate the failure of Madison, which was bailed out at the expense of the taxpayers, and the role that the Clintons' investments in Whitewater may have played in Madison's demise. But as time has passed and the committee has dug deeper into this matter, new issues regarding the Clinton administration have arisen-- issues related to arrogance, abuse of power, lack of accountability to the people, and obstruction of justice. There is no clearer example of these unseemly traits than the issue facing the Senate today: the President's assertion of the attorney- client privilege to withhold notes taken by a taxpayer-paid public servant at a meeting to discuss Bill Clinton's personal legal problems. On November 5, 1993, a meeting was held in Washington by seven men-- three private attorneys and four White House officials: White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum, associate White House counsels William Kennedy and Neil Eggleston, and White House Personnel Director Bruce Lindsey. From the information we have been able to collect, the meeting concerned: first, criminal referrals related to Madison Guaranty which named Bill and Hillary Clinton as potential witnesses; and second, the criminal lending practices of Capital Management Services--a federally licensed company which allegedly diverted funds to Whitewater. When questioned by the special committee, both Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Kennedy refused to discuss the substance of that November 1993 meeting. In addition, Mr. Kennedy refused to provide us with his notes from the meeting, despite evidence showing that these notes may be significantly related to our investigation. Mr. Kennedy, at the instruction of counsel for both the President and the First Lady, went so far as to ignore a subpoena from our committee for these notes. Instead, he and the President asserted that the attorney-client privilege protects them from disclosing these notes. For reasons given by many of my colleagues today, this claim on a legal basis is at best questionable. But in the midst of this important debate over the legal ramifications of the President's abuse of this privilege, I hope that the ethical issues that have surrounded this event will not be ignored. At the time of this meeting, Mr. Kennedy served as associate White House counsel. Like Mr. Nussbaum, Mr. Eggleston, and Mr. Lindsey, he was paid not by President Clinton, but by the taxpayers. His office was furnished by taxpayers' dollars. His business expenses were covered by taxpayers' dollars. Given these facts, it is obvious to me that Mr. Kennedy's true clients, the people to whom he owned his legal services, were you and me: the taxpayers. This relationship, however, has still not been honestly recognized by President Clinton. By asserting privilege over these notes, President Clinton essentially said that Mr. Kennedy worked for him, in spite of the fact that Bill Clinton did not pay Mr. Kennedy's salary. By using this legal tool, Bill Clinton in essence turned his own personal legal bills over to the taxpayers. And that, Mr. President, is dead wrong. I suppose we should not be too surprised by President Clinton's actions. After all, Mr. Kennedy is just one of many current and former employees of the executive branch involved in this apparent coverup of Whitewater. During our hearings, we have heard from a number of Federal employees--political appointees and civil servants alike--about their roles in keeping this whole matter quiet and away from the eye of public scrutiny. It's clear to me and anyone else who has paid attention to our hearings that Bill Clinton has used every tool in his grasp to stonewall this investigation. This use of privilege to shield Mr. Kennedy's notes from the public was the most blatant abuse of power we have seen, but it has not been the only one. Do not misunderstand me--I believe every citizen, including the President of the United States of America, is entitled to the protections of the attorney-client privilege. But no one, not even the President, has the right to abuse this privilege, especially when doing so means furthering one's personal gain over the public good. And even with the White House inching toward some sort of agreement, the damage has already been done. The attorney-client privilege has already been asserted to protect not Just Bill Clinton, but also President Clinton. Today, the Oliver Stone film ``Nixon'' is opening in theaters across America. I suggest that Bill Clinton arrange a private screening in the White House theater, as it should be most instructive for the future. What the people hated most about the Watergate scandal was not the amateur break-in at the Democratic National Committee. What they could not tolerate and what led to the resignation of President Nixon was the cover-up, the stonewalling, the fact that the President placed himself above the law. But Mr. President, even Richard Nixon did not hide behind the attorney-client privilege. Bill Clinton did. Eighteen-months ago this was something that President Clinton said that he would never do, as we can see from a quote from President Clinton's remarks to a town meeting in Charlotte, NC on April 5, 1994. The President said: I've looked for no procedural ways to get around this. I say, you tell me you want to know, I'll give you the information. I have done everything I could to be open and aboveboard. Some have asked why it is so important that the special committee receive access to Mr. Kennedy's notes. I can only answer by asking President Clinton why it was so important to him that these notes not be seen. Why did he go to such lengths as to use privilege as a shield to hide these notes from the public? Obviously, if there is nothing to hide, there is no reason to keep these notes a secret or to conditionally withhold them. If there is nothing incriminating in these pages, why not disclose them openly and honestly? The fact of the matter is we will not know until we see them. And if there is something there, these notes may help us piece together the puzzle known as Whitewater. Because unlike the witnesses from the administration who have been expertly coached to experience suspiciously selective memory during their testimony, these notes cannot hide anything. They cannot duck questions by saying, ``My memory fails me'' or ``I can't recollect at this time.'' And maybe that is what scares Bill Clinton the most. Mr. President, it may surprise you, but I hope that these notes do not incriminate anyone. Like most Americans, I want to think the best of our President. But we have a responsibility to get to the bottom of this whole affair, because, like everyone who has worked for the Clinton administration, we too are paid by the taxpayers. And we owe it to them to uncover the truth, no matter how dark or unsavory it might be. That, Mr. President, is what this resolution before the Senate is all about--it is what this entire Whitewater investigation is about: Our obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I urge the President to unconditionally release these notes. If he does not, I hope my colleagues will join me in a spirit of honesty and openness in supporting this resolution. We owe the American people that much. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I request that I be able to speak as in morning business----

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I request that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation reforming the burdensome regulatory process for pesticide approvals under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. I am pleased to say that my legislation achieves that goal while preserving and improving upon our Nation's public health. This legislation is a product of compromise between the affected industry and the Environmental Protection Agency. The spirit of bipartisanship is best exemplified by the list of my colleagues joining me in this effort, including Senator Heflin, Senator Pryor, Senator McConnell, Senator Conrad, Senator Coverdell and Senator Santorum. As members of the Agriculture Committee, their support for this commonsense legislation is essential and appreciated. Mr. President, Congress has finally begun to recognize the severe burdens we place upon America's job creators when we impose regulatory legislation without respect to its cost or ultimate benefits. So I am pleased that we have made significant progress this year in reforming and reducing some of that regulatory burden, and I believe this legislation takes us another step forward. The pesticides covered by this legislation, called antimicrobial products, include common household disinfectant cleaners, bleaches, sanitizers, and disinfectants. Antimicrobials play an important and beneficial role in controlling disease and in maintaining a high public-health standard in hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, schools, hotels, restaurants, and even in our own homes. Because emergency workers rely on antimicrobial pesticides to disinfect contaminated water supplies, they are especially valuable during times of natural disasters, such as flooding in the Midwest, hurricanes in Florida, and earthquakes in California. Yet despite the critical role antimicrobials play in maintaining public health, and the efforts of our colleagues to develop a responsible solution, there have been significant and unintended delays on the EPA's part in approving these products for use. Unfortunately, those delays in the registration process have stifled the ability of the industry to market new products--products which could have an even more significant impact on the public health. I would like to share an example. A new product which provides extraordinary effectiveness against a powerful form of bacteria was developed by an international supplier of cleaning and sanitizing products. Not only was this new product found to be extremely effective, but it was also developed to break down rapidly once it had achieved its sanitizing work. In short, it effectively helped destroy bacteria while it reduced the likelihood of environmental damage. While this revolutionary product had proven merits, the company could not get the product approved by the EPA for over 2 years because of the cumbersome approval process. At the end of that 2-year period, the EPA granted its approval and agreed that this product was of great importance to public health and the environment. It's unfortunate that it has taken so long for the Government to recognize what its manufacturer had long known. Such examples have become commonplace. Because of this inappropriate backlog of anti-microbial applications pending within the EPA that have little or no chance of being resolved within a reasonable period of time, the need for legislative reform is clear. Our legislation will establish process for expediting the review of anti-microbial products. It incorporates predictability into the system without compromising public health and safety. it encourages industry and Government to work together to actually improve products which can better guarantee our public health. In a legislative climate that is too often partisan and uncompromising, this bill is an example of how Congress, the administration and its Federal agencies, industry, and consumers can pool their efforts to achieve a common end. Again, I thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this bill, the anti-microbial industry, user groups, and the EPA for coming together to work out the details of this bill. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense reform.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, during this second shutdown of the Federal Government, I am reminded of the old saying that two wrongs do not make a right. I believe it is wrong to tell 300,000 Federal workers that because the Government considers them nonessential, they cannot come into work today. But Mr. President, it is even more wrong to then turn to the American taxpayer and tell them to pay these workers for not working. That's right. For the second time this year, Washington is requiring taxpayers to pay with their hard-earned dollars for services that will never be given. While we may have honest differences about the amount of government people should pay for, I think we can all agree that taxpayers should not be forced to give something for nothing. But that is exactly what they are getting for their tax dollars: nothing. What is worse is that this whole situation has arisen because President Clinton has refused to carry through on his promise to deliver a 7-year balanced budget using real numbers. One month ago, when the first Government shutdown occurred, the debate was over whether or not to balance the budget in 7 years. It took a week, 800,000 furloughed employees, and a lot of complaints from the American taxpayers, but the President finally got the message. We came to an agreement by both Congress and the White House that the American people would finally get what they have been calling for--a real 7-year balanced budget. Gridlock was over. Or so we thought. Instead of following through on his promise, President Clinton has deliberated, deferred and delayed his balanced budget proposal. The only thing he has not done is delivered--and it does not look like he ever will. Make no mistake about it--the shutdown of the Federal Government and the problems it has caused the American people lie squarely on the shoulders of one man--William Jefferson Clinton. Nothing symbolizes that fact more than President Clinton's generous offer this weekend to pay out of his own pocket the cost of keeping the White House Christmas tree lit. What the President did not say is that the bill which would pay for this expense--the funding bill for the Department of the Interior--was sitting right on his desk over the weekend, unsigned. Now that the President has vetoed the Interior appropriations bill, is he prepared to pay for all the programs at the Department of Interior that he is holding up? Will he personally pay for the expenses at the Departments of Veterans' Administration, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Justice, State and any other agency whose funding he has vetoed? Are the Democrats who are holding up the Labor-HHS bill in the Senate willing to use their salaries to pay for the programs at the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education? Are they willing to pay with their own money for the Low-Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, the funding for which they have stalled and refused to consider, even today in mid-December? Obviously, the answer is no. But if they did, if they were the ones forced to pay the bills, instead of the taxpayers, maybe things would be different. Maybe we would not be so willing to lay off Federal workers and then pay them for not working. Maybe we would not have so much Government to pay for in the first place. Unfortunately, justice and fairness for the taxpayers is not a concept well received in Washington, and as a result, the American taxpayers are stuck with the bill but without services rendered. On Friday, I introduced legislation that I believe will reverse this trend and restore some fairness to the taxpayers. The Federal Employment Taxpayer Accountability Act would eliminate the current distinction in law between nonessential and essential Federal workers, thereby considering them all essential. After all, if a worker is considered nonessential on 1 day of the year, what makes them so essential on the other 364? And why should we force the taxpayers to pay for a service that is considered nonessential? My legislation would ensure that all Federal workers are at their desks every day, that they no longer be used as pawns in a Washington chess match over the budget. It will help lift the morale of Federal workers by letting them know that their efforts are recognized and appreciated, while guaranteeing the taxpayers that only an honest day's work earns an honest day's pay. Mr. President, two wrongs do not make a right, nor do three or four or the many wrongs Washington has done the American taxpayer. Let us do something right for a change. Let us protect the taxpayers from having to pay for unsolicited vacation days in Washington because it is the right thing to do. Let us pass and get signed into law the remaining appropriations bills because it is the right thing to do. And let us deliver the American people a real, honest 7-year balanced budget before Christmas because it is the right thing to do. As 1995 comes to an end, I ask Congress and the President to make an early New Year's resolution on behalf of the taxpayers and our children and grandchildren that we will keep them in forefront of our minds as we conduct the people's business by doing the right thing. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I know we can be sitting here and listening and what we are going to hear, I am afraid, starting tonight, which we already heard and probably will for the next couple of days, is a lot of excuses, excuses of why this Government is going to shut down, as I know Senators before me have pointed out, at midnight tonight. Why is this going to happen? The basic reason, and what we keep hearing is people just want to change the focus, change the direction, put the blame somewhere else, excuse after excuse of why we cannot reach a balanced budget. The fact of the matter is, the President has not come to the table with a balanced budget. And in fact, the Democratic Party has not come to the table with a balanced budget scored by CBO to balance in 7 years. The President's budgets have been on the floor of this Senate debated twice--Clinton I, Clinton II. It is too bad we have to start putting numbers to this. Clinton I, Clinton II have been offered on the floor. Not one Democrat voted for it. In fact, it was zero in favor, 99 against. The budget that was delivered again today that was supposed to be the latest good-faith effort by this administration, called Clinton III, is about the same as what we saw in Clinton I and II, and yet I still cannot, for the life of me, figure out how we can have Senators stand on the floor tonight and defend the budget that they have failed two times previously to even take a vote for. Now, they talked about $245 billion in tax cuts. Somehow Americans do not deserve to keep some of their own money--money that they get up early in the morning to earn. If you are in my home State of Minnesota, you get up when it is 21 below zero, get out in the cold car and drive to your job, 7 days a week, 5 days a week, 6 days a week, and you make $300, $400, and the Government wants more of it. And somehow, Senators sitting in a warm Chamber here in Washington, DC, somehow do not believe they should be able to keep it. It was not very hard for these same Senators, in 1993, to vote to increase your taxes by $265 billion--the largest tax increase in history. That was easy for them because they are compassionate with your money--not theirs, your money, the money you get up every day and work hard for and want to provide for your children, your family. But, somehow, they have first dibs, first claim on the money, somehow, that you are out working for. What they want to do is bring it to Washington so they can be compassionate and somehow give it back to you--$245 billion. Then they say, well, if we do not give you this tax cut, we can balance this budget in 7 years without the pain. I would like to ask taxpayers to look at it in this light: If we do not provide the $245 billion in tax reduction over the next 7 years, where is that money going to go? I have not heard one person on the floor say that if we do not provide this tax cut, we will balance the budget faster. It will still be 7 years. In that respect, what are they saying? They are saying Congress can spend that $245 billion wiser than you can. In other words, the $12.4 trillion that Congress is going to get its hands on in the next 7 years is not enough. They want that other 1.5 percent from you. They want that other $245 billion so they can spend it. They do not want to save it. They want to spend it. CBO revised their numbers, updating their forecast. They say, ``We believe there will be another $135 billion.'' What is the first fiscal responsibility that we hear? Spend it. Spend it. The last 3 years of our balanced budget plan calls for deficits totaling $131 billion. If they are really serious, why don't we take that whole $135 billion in new spending and put it directly against the deficit? We can balance this budget in 5 years, not 7, but 5 years, if we want to do that. But I have not heard anybody say that. They are saying: Let us spend it. On top of the $245 billion, now the President wants to, again, and the Democratic leadership wants to, again, take away from American taxpayers the $135 billion on top of that and spend that as well. That sends a very clear message: Tax and spend. Tax and spend. That has been the Democratic philosophy for the last 40 years, which has equated into a $5 trillion deficit. They talk about being worried about children. We want to provide for our children. They have names and they have faces. We need to provide. But how do we provide? By robbing the piggy banks of those same children with those names and faces, so we can spend that money today on programs that we think are important? If our children had the right to vote on this floor--if my four grandchildren could stand on this floor and vote on something that says we are going to encumber your life to the tune of $5.5 trillion, how many votes do you think they would give us? None. None. I am glad to hear some of the Democrats tonight say they are willing to share the blame for the shutdown of the Government tonight at midnight. They are willing to share the blame. They better have bigger shoulders than that, and they better be able to point to the very person that that blame should be on, and that is the President himself. We hear talk about being partisan, about personal attacks against the President, and that we should have more kindness on the floor. Well, Mr. President, I am not here to be polite. I am here tonight trying to fight for the taxpayers of Minnesota and this country that sent me here. They say, ``We want to be polite and compassionate, as we have for 40 years, so let us raise taxes.'' That has always been the easy answer. Let us just look at it. In 1950, 2 percent of your income went to the Federal Government for taxes. So for every $50 you made, $1 went to Washington. It seemed to meet the needs. We were taking care of this country. We paid the debts. In fact, we paid for World War I and World War II. For Social Security, they used to take one-half of 1 percent of your incomes. That is what it used to be. Today, the Federal Government takes 26 percent. So, now, for every $4 you make, you send $1 to Washington. And Social Security has risen to over 15 percent of your income--not a half percent, but 15 percent. For your children, it is going to be 20, 25, and 30 percent, if we do not stop this growth. So when they are saying, ``This is not fair, these are not American values,'' I would like to know whose values they are talking about. They are not talking about my values or my fairness because I am looking at those names and those faces of the hard-working taxpayers of Minnesota, their children and their grandchildren, and I am saying I am not going to spend their inheritance into the ground so people here in Washington can pound their chest and say: ``Well, I am compassionate, I have taken care of the problem. I have taken your money. Pat me on the back. Let us send out some franked mail to our constituents and say, look what we did for you, look at how good we are for you. By the way, when you look at your check stubs and fill out your taxes next April, blame it on the Republicans. Well, everybody wants to focus on the tax cut--that $245 billion. Let us focus on the tax cut. Boy, I will tell you, if there were two lines back in my State and one says, ``Line up here to pay $2,000 in Federal taxes, or here to pay $1,000 in Federal taxes,'' I do not think there is going to be a very big decision made. I do not think anybody would be at the $2,000 window. We all want good Government and good services, but it does not come at any cost. There has to be some fiscal responsibility for the dollars that this Congress takes in and the dollars that this Congress spends. That is where the focus should be, not on the puny, little tax cut of $245 billion over 7 years, when we are spending over $12.5 trillion. They say that we better take that extra 1 percent because you are too dumb to spend it. Oh, I heard we are going to spend it at casinos if we give it to the parents. There is no such thing as a savings account, education, food, clothing, maybe a movie or a pizza; no, that is not in the realm of a smart parent. Oh, your children are not going to get that money; it is going to go to the parents and it will go to the casinos. Well, that is rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. Let us focus on the spending. How are we spending these dollars? Where are they going? There are two big things. Tax cuts is one thing they focus on, and the other is Medicare. As the Senator from Pennsylvania was saying, they want to pick on the most vulnerable and scare them and scare them. The fact of the matter is that we are very close to what the President has even proposed. When you look back at what Mrs. Clinton said in testimony before one of the committees in Congress, she said that we should hold Medicare spending to between 6 and 7 percent in order to get a handle on the growth. That does not mean we are not going to provide the services that we need. It is not going to mean Grandma is going to be out of her wheelchair and out in the street. But she said between 6 and 7 percent. Our plan calls for a 7.2-percent growth--from $4,800 this year to nearly $7,200 in 7 years. They know it. They have been written up in the newspapers for demagoging Medicare. They have no shame. They continue to come and talk about it. Then they say we have to be polite and we cannot be partisan. Personal attacks. I am not attacking individuals, I am attacking policy. This is not the right policy. Fairness, American values. How do you take more from our hard-working people and say you have to send more to Washington because we need this, we have to have more money here? The fact again is that the President does not have a plan. The Democrats do not have a plan. We have had a balanced budget on the table for months. The President signed a pledge that said before the end of this year he would put a balanced budget on the table for 7 years scored by CBO numbers. We hate to get into calling people liars, but when we do not see the information here, I will let people draw their own conclusions of whether that pledge has been lived up to. The Republican budget proposal that was put on the table today was different. It was a movement in the other direction. It was trying to find some common ground here. How do you find common ground when you are shadow boxing, when somebody will not come to the table and honestly put on a budget? Then they talk about no personal attacks. I do not know if people in the gallery or people at home had a chance to watch the news tonight, but the President did not take off his gloves when he came after the Republicans and spewed more of this rhetoric. I cannot understand for the life of me how people can stand on the floor here and defend this type of action. Talk about defense--defense is declining in actual dollars 20 percent over the next 7 years. It is not going up. Medicare is going up 53 percent; defense is going down 20 percent. Yet, they hang on to this as using this as some kind of example. Then we have some Senator saying 80 percent of the tax cuts are going to the wealthiest in the country. Then they have others that say 50 percent is going to the wealthiest. When you pull numbers out of the air and make up stories--maybe they should go back and get the stories straight. The fact is, 80 percent of the tax reduction in this package goes to families that make less than $100,000--not $100,000 tax credit for someone making $350,000. It sounds good. It is rhetoric. It might get headlines, but it is not fact. Rhetoric, half-truths, distortions. I have been the author of the $500-per-child tax credit and I have worked for it for 3 years because I thought it was important that families were able to keep more of the money they made. Families out there expect this. Republicans better remember it and the Democrats should remember it because I think this is going to be one of the telling tales in the election of 1996. I will wrap up quickly. I see the leader on the floor. Americans know why they voted for Republicans in 1994. Why are there 11 freshman Republicans in the Senate and not 1 Democrat? I think it is pretty clear. There was a clear message. Not one Republican freshman lost his seat in the House. It was pretty clear what Americans wanted. If they listened to the Republican plan, the Contract With America--you might not agree with everything in the contract--I think the majority of people in this country agree with the majority of the contract, and at least it is moving this country away from a bigger, faster growing, bloated, inefficient, money-wasting Government, to try to streamline it to make it more effective, more cost friendly for taxpayers, and to provide the better services, to provide the Medicare, to provide the welfare, to provide Medicaid, Head Start, and other programs to the kids that need it, but to also ensure that those programs are going to be here tomorrow and the next day, and the next year and the next year. If we are going to spend their money today, if you think we are facing tough budget battles today, if we do not face this problem today, by the year 2000 this is going to be an animal that we will not want to grab the tail of because it is getting away from us now and we do not have much time to get it fixed. If we spend more money and increase the size of this Government, it will make that problem harder and harder to control. I yield the floor.