Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, once again we stand at the edge of another partial shutdown of the Federal Government. Looking back on last month's shutdown, I have a hard time explaining to Minnesotans why we gave 800,000 Federal Government employees 4\1/2\ days of what amounts to paid ``vacation'' on top of the already generous employee leave benefits. I have a hard time explaining what the taxpayers got when they footed the bill for $400 million dollars of work that was never performed. Mr. President, losing your job is tough but if you get laid off or you go on strike, you don't get paid. Yet, if the Federal Government furloughs many of its employees it becomes a vacation and is paid in full. I'm reminded of that popular song from a few years back: ``Somthin' for nothin'.'' That's exactly what Federal employees got when the Government shut down--``Somethin' for nothin'.'' And I suggest, Mr. President, that the American taxpayer is sick and tired of getting nothing. I realize that most Federal employees want to work and not become pawns in the debate over Federal spending. I want to change the law to ensure that Federal employees will work during shutdowns. As we all know, the determination of whether you came to work during the shutdown depended on if you were deemed ``essential'' or ``nonessential.'' It was very interesting when we saw the numbers of ``nonessential'' employees in some of the agencies we continue to support with billions of tax dollars. Fifty-seven percent of the employees at Health and Human Services; 66 percent of Commerce; 72 percent at Interior; 75 percent at Labor; 82 percent at EPA; 89 percent at Education; and a full 99 percent of HUD. Overall 800,000 employees--all of them deemed ``nonessential'' all of them on a paid ``vacation'' they didn't ask for and didn't want. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to explain to angry Minnesotans why we're employing all of these nonessential employees and even worse, why we paid them to stay away from the office. Mr. President, we cannot let this happen again. We cannot have employees who come to work not knowing whether they'll be paid and others forced to sit at home, hoping they will be paid. This is unfair to Federal employees and this is especially unfair to American taxpayers, who pay far too much of their hard earned dollars to the Government. For this reason, I am introducing legislation which will end this classification process and restore some common sense that will keep people working when Congress and the President fail to enact appropriations. Simply put, my bill, the ``Federal Employment Taxpayer Accountability Act,'' eliminates the distinction between essential and nonessential employees deeming all Federal Government employees essential. This will put an end to classification of Federal employees. It removes the guesswork on who's ``essential'' and most importantly, it eliminates Federal employees being used as ``pawns'' of the process--as bargaining chips for negotiators. Mr. President, the prospect of another Government shutdown is disappointing. The people of this country are demanding a balanced budget. Yet here we are, ready to throw another 300,000 employees out of work at Christmas time. Will they get paid when they come back? My bet is yes. If they're paid again for not working will the taxpayers understand? My bet is no. Let's not let this happen again. Let's ensure that taxpayers are protected. Let's ensure that when we ask them to send part of their paycheck to Washington, they're getting the most efficient cost effective Government possible--without the paid vacations. I urge my colleagues to support Federal workers--and the American taxpayers--by supporting the Federal Employment Taxpayer Accountability Act.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, once again we stand at the edge of another partial shutdown of the Federal Government. Looking back on last month's shutdown, I have a hard time explaining to Minnesotans why we gave 800,000 Federal Government employees 4\1/2\ days of what amounts to paid ``vacation'' on top of the already generous employee leave benefits. I have a hard time explaining what the taxpayers got when they footed the bill for $400 million dollars of work that was never performed. Mr. President, losing your job is tough but if you get laid off or you go on strike, you don't get paid. Yet, if the Federal Government furloughs many of its employees it becomes a vacation and is paid in full. I'm reminded of that popular song from a few years back: ``Somthin' for nothin'.'' That's exactly what Federal employees got when the Government shut down--``Somethin' for nothin'.'' And I suggest, Mr. President, that the American taxpayer is sick and tired of getting nothing. I realize that most Federal employees want to work and not become pawns in the debate over Federal spending. I want to change the law to ensure that Federal employees will work during shutdowns. As we all know, the determination of whether you came to work during the shutdown depended on if you were deemed ``essential'' or ``nonessential.'' It was very interesting when we saw the numbers of ``nonessential'' employees in some of the agencies we continue to support with billions of tax dollars. Fifty-seven percent of the employees at Health and Human Services; 66 percent of Commerce; 72 percent at Interior; 75 percent at Labor; 82 percent at EPA; 89 percent at Education; and a full 99 percent of HUD. Overall 800,000 employees--all of them deemed ``nonessential'' all of them on a paid ``vacation'' they didn't ask for and didn't want. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to explain to angry Minnesotans why we're employing all of these nonessential employees and even worse, why we paid them to stay away from the office. Mr. President, we cannot let this happen again. We cannot have employees who come to work not knowing whether they'll be paid and others forced to sit at home, hoping they will be paid. This is unfair to Federal employees and this is especially unfair to American taxpayers, who pay far too much of their hard earned dollars to the Government. For this reason, I am introducing legislation which will end this classification process and restore some common sense that will keep people working when Congress and the President fail to enact appropriations. Simply put, my bill, the ``Federal Employment Taxpayer Accountability Act,'' eliminates the distinction between essential and nonessential employees deeming all Federal Government employees essential. This will put an end to classification of Federal employees. It removes the guesswork on who's ``essential'' and most importantly, it eliminates Federal employees being used as ``pawns'' of the process--as bargaining chips for negotiators. Mr. President, the prospect of another Government shutdown is disappointing. The people of this country are demanding a balanced budget. Yet here we are, ready to throw another 300,000 employees out of work at Christmas time. Will they get paid when they come back? My bet is yes. If they're paid again for not working will the taxpayers understand? My bet is no. Let's not let this happen again. Let's ensure that taxpayers are protected. Let's ensure that when we ask them to send part of their paycheck to Washington, they're getting the most efficient cost effective Government possible--without the paid vacations. I urge my colleagues to support Federal workers--and the American taxpayers--by supporting the Federal Employment Taxpayer Accountability Act.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit this afternoon about budget numbers and budget dollars. To hear the talk on Capitol Hill, you would think that Christmas came early this week and that the Congressional Budget Office was playing the part of Santa Claus, because on Monday, the CBO released its revised revenue predictions for the next 7 years, producing an unexpected $135 billion windfall over the life of our 7-year plan to balance the Federal budget. And would you not know it, like kids let loose under a package-packed Christmas tree, President Clinton and Congress are scrambling to snatch up the dollars for their own holiday spending spree. Mr. President, I did not come to the floor to be the Grinch Who Stole Christmas, but let's take a step back and ask ourselves just what we're doing here. We've got a deficit today of $164 billion and a national debt of nearly $5 trillion. We are dangerously overextended on the Government's credit card. Yet when the revenue forecast says we will have $135 billion more than we thought we would have by the year 2002, what are we thinking when the first thing we want to do is rush out and squander it on a taxpayer financed holiday spending spree? If that is how this Congress is going to conduct itself, we are no better than the 40 years of past Congresses that got us into this fiscal mess to begin with. Where is the commitment to changing Washington's free-spending ways we like to brag about to our constituents back home? What kind of message does this send to the taxpayers, who entrusted their dollars-- their hard-earned tax dollars--to us in the first place? Anybody can spend a dollar, Mr. President, or in the case of Congress, a great, great many of them. But it takes discipline to save those same dollars, and what I am seeing today is a disturbing lack of the kind of discipline it will take to finally balance the budget. What should we do with the $135 billion found by the CBO? Exactly what legislation introduced last week by myself and my good friend, Senator McCain, instructs us to do: lock it away on behalf of the taxpayers for deficit reduction or additional tax relief. The Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act of 1995 precisely spells out the process Congress must undertake when actual Federal revenues exceed predictions. Our legislation ends the abuse of taxpayer dollars and returns honesty to the budget process by creating a new revenue lockbox. As we all know, Congress acknowledges the CBO as Government's voice of authority when it comes to accurate, conservative, nonpartisan economic projections. Congress relies on those CBO projections when we estimate the amount of tax revenues that will come into the Treasury over the life of our 7-year balanced budget plan, and then we use those revenue estimates to determine the extent to which Federal spending can grow without resulting in a budget deficit in the year 2002. While these estimates by the Congressional Budget Office are generally on the mark, they are only estimates, of course, and the revised forecast issued by the CBO this week illustrates the inherent problem with forecasts: Changing conditions mean forecasts need to be updated. And as we move closer to a balanced budget, they will need further updating to take into account the additional dollars our balanced budget plan will generate for the Treasury. After all, we are including tax relief designed to stimulate economic growth, create new jobs, and turn tax users into productive taxpayers. Any additional dollars, however, should not be used to feed Congress' appetite for spending. Instead, any additional revenue that results from our balanced budget plan ought to be returned to the taxpayers in the form of tax relief or deficit reduction. These dollars were born of the hard work and productivity of the American people--it makes sense to give those dollars back to the taxpayers and encourage even greater productivity. And that is just what our revenue lockbox does. It requires that any revenues above and beyond current estimates be used for tax cuts and/or deficit reduction. It ensures taxpayers that their hard-earned dollars will no longer be automatically spent by Congress, ending the misguided notion here in the beltway that tax dollars belong to the Government, rather than the taxpayers. Imagine the dramatic deficit reduction we could achieve if, instead of plowing the CBO's $135 billion into more social spending, against the wishes of the taxpayers, we dedicated it toward eliminating the deficit. How much sooner would we balance the budget and start down the road toward a debt-free future for our children and grandchildren if we invested that $135 billion in their future, and not on another quick fix for the big spenders in Washington? After all, if the politicians have their way, how much of that $135 billion will truly be spent meeting needs, and not simply offering dessert? Or imagine what we could do for the taxpayers of this Nation--who have been forced every year to finance the political agenda of a Congress that simply never learned to say ``no''--if we handed them back that $135 billion in the form of tax relief? Have we forgotten that it is their money to begin with, not the Government's? Mr. President, it is as if you and a friend were walking down the street and happened across a wallet plump with cash. For most of us, there is no moral dilemma--it is not our money. We would return it to its rightful owner, no questions asked. Well, there is apparently no moral dilemma for Congress, either--it would spend the money, even $135 billion dollars, long before the wallet's owner even realized it was missing. By dedicating it toward tax cuts, Congress could do a lot of good with the CBO's $135 billion in unexpected revenue. What about expanding the tax relief provisions already called for in our Balanced Budget Act? We could make the $500 per child tax credit be retroactive back to January 1, 1995, and help offset the devastating effects of President Clinton's retroactive tax increase in 1993. We could make the $500 per-child tax credit refundable against payroll tax liability, enabling lower-income, working Americans the opportunity to keep more of the dollars they so desperately need to keep their families fed and clothed, with a secure roof over their heads. We could eliminate the marriage penalty this year--not 7 years from now. We could empower senior citizens to once again become productive members of the workforce by repealing the Social Security earnings limit--another tax increase imposed by President Clinton in his 1993 budget. We could index the capital gains tax back to an earlier date as well. Mr. President, by intelligently utilizing the CBO's new forecasts, there are a great many things we could do to expand on our promise to the American people to cut their taxes while we are balancing the budget. But blocking our way is a White House intent on financing more and more Federal spending at the taxpayers' expense, and you won't find a more vivid illustration of just why we need the deficit lockbox and the protections it would provide. If there are any extra dollars in the Federal budget, they should be returned to the millions of American taxpayers who finance this Government every day with sweat and blood, not to Congress or the White House for bigger Government. I do not know what it will take to convince me that President Clinton and the big spenders on Capitol Hill are truly serious about getting Government spending under control, but I do know they will never do it by trying to compete with Santa Claus. If they want to don red suits and beards and finance more Government agencies, more bureaucrats, and more Federal programs, they will have to cut spending somewhere else to pay for them. The holiday season may be a time for giving, but the taxpayers have already given until it hurts. You can call me old fashioned, but a gift that reflects the true spirit of Christmas is not about giving in the hope of getting something back in return. It is about giving something from the heart. A balanced budget is that kind of gift, Mr. President. You cannot wrap up a balanced budget, or engrave it, or put it under a Christmas tree. It is not the kind of gift that will score you points with relatives looking for a holiday handout or get you in good with the boss or impress a neighbor. You cannot really hand it to anyone and get a thank you in return. You can, however, look into the faces of those who will someday appreciate this gift most of all--our children and grandchildren, because once the Federal budget is balanced, they will finally be free. That, Mr. President, will be the greatest Christmas gift Congress could deliver this holiday season--that is, to work out a balanced budget before we leave on December 22. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on the heels of today's Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on legislation to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, I am introducing legislation to privatize the Federal spent fuel interim storage program. It is my understanding that the House plans to act on similar legislation before the Christmas recess. Today's hearing, coupled with the introduction of my bill should provide the impetus for timely action in the full Senate. When the Energy Committee held a hearing on various nuclear waste policy proposals earlier this year, all of our witnesses agreed that the ``1998'' date is critical in this debate. With 1996 only a few weeks away, the deadline is rapidly approaching and we are no closer to resolving this issue than the last time Congress enacted nuclear waste legislation [1987]. But it is not like we haven't seen this deadline coming. For 16 years, the Department of Energy has been charged with the responsibility of our civilian spent fuel. In that time, DOE has spent nearly $5 billion of ratepayers' money--including over $250 million from Minnesota's electric customers. And yet here we sit, debating the issue of exactly what to do with America's civilian nuclear waste. But the Department of Energy just continues to go round in circles. First, they said we can store waste at Yucca Mountain; then they tell us we can't force it on Nevada. Then DOE says they can't meet the 1998 deadline--and even claim they aren't legally bound to do so; then they tell us they can, if only Congress would ``untie'' their hands. The latest was that an interim facility couldn't be complete for 7 years at a cost of nearly $400 million; then their testimony says it could be done in 4 at a third of the cost. It is hard to tell what is truth and what is fiction for the DOE anymore. It is my hope that today's hearing will help us find out. For the past few months, I have met with and carefully reviewed reports and studies by the General Accounting Office, independent groups, former DOE employees, and even former Energy Secretary Watkins on this issue. I found there is strong support for removing the civilian waste program from DOE--and that support grows even stronger when we focus specifically on privatizing the interim storage program. After years of working on this issue with Minnesota's ratepayers, utilities and State officials, I am convinced that privatizing the interim storage program remains our last, best hope for getting waste out of Minnesota and the other 30 plus States which are struggling with this issue. Later today, I will be introducing the Private Interim Storage Facility Authorizing Act of 1995. My legislation targets one small--but key--component of the overall Federal nuclear waste program. Privatizing the interim waste storage program offers three key benefits--it saves money, it provides relief to States such as Minnesota that are faced with on-site storage restrictions, and it protects the environment. And as with most initiatives, privatizing the interim storage program would improve efficiency and lower costs to the taxpayers. Based upon the business plan for the Mescalero private initiative, a private interim facility could be completed for approximately $135 million and done in time to meet the 1998 deadline. That is hundreds of millions of dollars less than what the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management originally quoted earlier this summer. And while DOE has revised its estimates downward in recent weeks, it is only because of the undisputable cost data for the Mescalero project. Competition always reduces costs, particularly when it is with the Federal Government--the Mescalero project is proof of that. With the Mescalero initiative moving forward while congressional action has stalled--some have asked if this venture could resolve the interim issue. The short answer would be ``yes,'' in fact, 20 utilities are now participating in this private venture. But Congress and the DOE have the legal responsibility to resolve this issue. And we have the responsibility of ensuring it is done by 1998. Mr. President, I believe focusing on the interim storage privatization not only represents a workable option, but it also provides a ``win-win'' for ratepayers, for States, and for the environment. Therefore, I would encourage my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring the Private Interim Storage Facility Authorizing Act of 1995.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on the heels of today's Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on legislation to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, I am introducing legislation to privatize the Federal spent fuel interim storage program. It is my understanding that the House plans to act on similar legislation before the Christmas recess. Today's hearing, coupled with the introduction of my bill should provide the impetus for timely action in the full Senate. When the Energy Committee held a hearing on various nuclear waste policy proposals earlier this year, all of our witnesses agreed that the ``1998'' date is critical in this debate. With 1996 only a few weeks away, the deadline is rapidly approaching and we are no closer to resolving this issue than the last time Congress enacted nuclear waste legislation [1987]. But it is not like we haven't seen this deadline coming. For 16 years, the Department of Energy has been charged with the responsibility of our civilian spent fuel. In that time, DOE has spent nearly $5 billion of ratepayers' money--including over $250 million from Minnesota's electric customers. And yet here we sit, debating the issue of exactly what to do with America's civilian nuclear waste. But the Department of Energy just continues to go round in circles. First, they said we can store waste at Yucca Mountain; then they tell us we can't force it on Nevada. Then DOE says they can't meet the 1998 deadline--and even claim they aren't legally bound to do so; then they tell us they can, if only Congress would ``untie'' their hands. The latest was that an interim facility couldn't be complete for 7 years at a cost of nearly $400 million; then their testimony says it could be done in 4 at a third of the cost. It is hard to tell what is truth and what is fiction for the DOE anymore. It is my hope that today's hearing will help us find out. For the past few months, I have met with and carefully reviewed reports and studies by the General Accounting Office, independent groups, former DOE employees, and even former Energy Secretary Watkins on this issue. I found there is strong support for removing the civilian waste program from DOE--and that support grows even stronger when we focus specifically on privatizing the interim storage program. After years of working on this issue with Minnesota's ratepayers, utilities and State officials, I am convinced that privatizing the interim storage program remains our last, best hope for getting waste out of Minnesota and the other 30 plus States which are struggling with this issue. Later today, I will be introducing the Private Interim Storage Facility Authorizing Act of 1995. My legislation targets one small--but key--component of the overall Federal nuclear waste program. Privatizing the interim waste storage program offers three key benefits--it saves money, it provides relief to States such as Minnesota that are faced with on-site storage restrictions, and it protects the environment. And as with most initiatives, privatizing the interim storage program would improve efficiency and lower costs to the taxpayers. Based upon the business plan for the Mescalero private initiative, a private interim facility could be completed for approximately $135 million and done in time to meet the 1998 deadline. That is hundreds of millions of dollars less than what the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management originally quoted earlier this summer. And while DOE has revised its estimates downward in recent weeks, it is only because of the undisputable cost data for the Mescalero project. Competition always reduces costs, particularly when it is with the Federal Government--the Mescalero project is proof of that. With the Mescalero initiative moving forward while congressional action has stalled--some have asked if this venture could resolve the interim issue. The short answer would be ``yes,'' in fact, 20 utilities are now participating in this private venture. But Congress and the DOE have the legal responsibility to resolve this issue. And we have the responsibility of ensuring it is done by 1998. Mr. President, I believe focusing on the interim storage privatization not only represents a workable option, but it also provides a ``win-win'' for ratepayers, for States, and for the environment. Therefore, I would encourage my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring the Private Interim Storage Facility Authorizing Act of 1995.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of the Hutchison resolution. I want to commend Senator Hutchison, Senator Inhofe, and other Senators whose outspoken and persuasive leadership has given us this opportunity to send a clear message to the President on the Bosnia issue. Like my 28 colleagues who have cosponsored this resolution, I believe the Senate must express its opposition to President Clinton's planned deployment of United States ground forces to Bosnia. I encourage all of my colleagues who have strong reservations about the President's actions to vote for the Hutchison resolution. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am convinced that this resolution is the only way to send a clear, unambiguous message to the President without hurting American troops who are already on the ground or who will be arriving imminently in Bosnia. The President has failed to convince the American public of his basic premise--that such vital national security interests are at stake in Bosnia that we should risk the lives of United States soldiers to enforce a fragile peace there. Letters and calls from my home State of Minnesota continue to oppose sending troops 3 to 1. Unfortunately, I hold out little hope that the Hutchison resolution, even if it passes, will prevent United States troops from being deployed to Bosnia. If the President is willing to begin the Bosnia operation despite strong and sustained public opposition, it is difficult to imagine that one more vote in Congress will change his mind. We all understand the President has the constitutional power to commit troops without congressional approval, but a far more worrisome question is whether he should sustain this dubious military operation without a solid base of public support. In 1993, during the height of the civil war in Bosnia, President Clinton made a regrettable mistake: He pledged to commit 25,000 United States ground troops to enforce any future peace agreement between the warring parties in the Balkans. The President made this promise without knowing the exact terms of the peace agreement that would emerge, without conducting a thorough review of the operation's dangers and without consulting Congress. Now, he has essentially dared Congress to break his ill-considered commitment of U.S. forces and thereby, he says, risk undermining the peace agreement, our international credibility and our relations with NATO allies. In doing so, the President has effectively painted the American soldier and Congress into an uncomfortable corner. As a result, United States troops are already on the ground in the Balkans as part of NATO's advance force, and thousands more American soldiers will find themselves in Bosnia for Christmas. Moreover, the President has repeatedly blocked efforts by Congress to end the unjust arms embargo on the Bosnians. This embargo has prevented the Bosnians from defending themselves and has encouraged continued Serbian aggression against their outnumbered foes. Even the Clinton administration is admitting that a military balance between warring factions is the key to stability in Bosnia and the eventual withdrawal of United States troops. How tragically ironic it is that the necessary outcome of NATO's operation in Bosnia could have been achieved without shedding American blood if the President had only allowed the Bosnians to arm themselves. Congress should not rubber-stamp the President's premature decision. We must not compound this Presidential blunder by abdicating our congressional responsibility. First, Congress should continue to express specific concerns about the scope of the NATO mission in Bosnia. While administration officials have made claims to the contrary, most Americans realize there is real potential for this operation to become increasingly open-ended and dangerous. During hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Christopher said that the NATO implementation force's only obligation was to carry out military objectives--namely, the separation of Bosnia's warring parties. But he also said that the peace agreement ``authorizes'' NATO forces ``to take additional [civilian] actions if the local commander desires to do so.'' Well, undoubtedly, giving NATO forces this discretionary power to support nation-building activities will put our troops at greater risk. So far, there have been many reports about the lack of coordination among international organizations charged with achieving civilian provisions in the peace agreement. If progress is not made on these civilian missions, the temptation for NATO forces to advance civilian goals--such as refugee resettlement--will only increase. In addition, without an effective exit strategy, the Bosnia operation's supposed 1-year time limit could evaporate. As I mentioned earlier, the key to an exit strategy for United States troops is the establishment of a military equilibrium among the warring parties. If the United States does not take a leading role in the arming and training of the Bosnians, it is very doubtful that it will be done to our satisfaction. Opponents who claim that a strong American role in arming the Bosnians will jeopardize the neutrality of United States troops are simply deluding themselves. The Serbs never have and never will consider the United States a neutral power in this arrangement. Have we forgotten that only months ago United States planes were bombing Serb positions? For the Serbs, an indirect American role in arming the Bosnians will hardly be more reassuring than a direct one. Indeed, one of my strongest concerns about the United States role in this operation is that we are mistakenly assuming we will be perceived as neutral by all parties in Bosnia. In 1983, a similar tragic miscalculation failed to prevent the deaths of 241 United States marines in Lebanon. Without question, the scope of the Bosnia mission must be narrowed and an effective exit strategy developed. For this reason, I appreciate what the majority leader and Senator McCain are trying to accomplish in their resolution and I know they are acting solely with the safety and well-being of our troops in mind. However, I cannot vote for the Dole resolution, which authorizes the President's deployment of United States troops to Bosnia. Given the manner in which the President has chosen to pledge our soldiers' lives for this peace agreement, I cannot vote to give him Congress' seal of approval. The President's strategy simply does not deserve it. Yet, while I am not willing to acquiesce to the President's plan, I also will not support cutting off funding for our troops while they are already on the ground. Although this action is within the constitutional powers of Congress, it would potentially endanger the men and women in our Armed Forces even further. We must learn from our past mistakes. We should not repeat the 1993 debacle in Somalia where United States troops were actually denied the equipment and weapons their commanders had requested. Soon afterwards, 18 American soldiers were killed when they were trapped during a tragic firefight. Therefore, the Senate's vote today on the President's plan to deploy troops in Bosnia is only the beginning of Congress' obligation to our men and women who serve and defend this Nation. We will closely monitor the Bosnia operation to ensure that it is fully funded, that our troops are adequately supplied and that the mission remains strictly focused. Mr. President, we owe our soldiers, their friends and family, and the American people nothing less. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on Tuesday, November 14, 1995, Mr. John Turner, chairman and CEO of ReliaStar Financial Corp., a financial services holding company in Minneapolis, MN, became the new chairman of the board of directors of the American Council of Life Insurance [ACLI]. The ACLI represents over 600 companies that write 92 percent of the life insurance and 95 percent of the pension business in the United States. As chairman, Mr. Turner will guide the ACLI as it works with Federal and State legislators, regulators and agencies to ensure the laws and regulations we enact serve the best interest of our Nation's business and individual policyholders and consumers, as well as insurance companies. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate John on this high honor and also to recognize the many years of community service he and his wife Leslie have played in the Twin Cities. From Leslie's involvement with the Girl Scouts of America and her service on the city council of Edina, MN to John's work on issues dealing with youth and education, they have made a positive difference in Minnesota. Professionally, Mr. Turner has been an active member of the ACLI's board of directors for 3 years, and in that capacity, he has given tremendous service to an industry that, in turn, serves this Nation so well. Life insurance companies provide a necessary service by helping to deliver financial security and peace of mind to millions of American families and individuals. Insurance industry products allow people to keep their homes and businesses, enable children to continue their education, and help support aging parents. The industry's retirement products provide the means by which this Nation's present and future retirees can achieve their financial independence and help fulfill their financial dreams. Mr. President, this Congress is in the process of returning power and responsibility to States, localities and, most importantly, to individuals. This unprecedented shift in power from Washington to the rest of America was summed up by John Turner in his inaugural speech as Chairman of the ACLI when he said: ``Neither Washington nor corporate America will much longer assume the financial burden of underwriting people's retirement security; that responsibility is being transferred to individuals.'' As this process continues, a broad range of issues from financial services modernization to tax reform to retirement income security will take center stage. From my seat on the Senate Banking Committee, I look forward to working closely with John on these and many other important issues. As it provides for fully one-third of this Nation's long-term savings, the life insurance industry is the foundation of financial security for millions of Americans and for our country. I am pleased to see that John Turner will be leading this effort from his new position as chairman of the ACLI. Again, Mr. President, I would like to congratulate John Turner and the ACLI. I am confident that he will bring to his new post the same dedication, honesty, and integrity he has demonstrated to ReliaStar Financial Corp. and the people of Minnesota. I wish John all the best and look forward to working with him the year ahead.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 6, 1995, to conduct an oversight hearing on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, P.L. 101-601. The hearing will take place at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

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 Wednesday, December 6, 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, see attached list.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10:15 a.m. on Wednesday, December 6, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony on the Bosnian peace agreement, the North Atlantic Council military plan, and the proposed mission for United States military forces deployed with the implementation force [IFOR].

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 6, 1995 at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing regarding intelligence matters.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for joint hearing with the Committee on Labor and Human Resources on Wednesday, December 6, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing focusing on OSHA Reform.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a joint hearing with the Committee on Small Business on Small Business and OSHA Reform (S. 1423), during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 6, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Wednesday, December 6, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on S. 356, the Language of Government Act of 1995.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain. Mr. President, in light of what is happening today at the White House--with President Clinton carrying out his threat to veto our plan to balance the Federal budget--this legislation could not be introduced at a more appropriate time. The American people ought to be disgusted that the President would turn his back on their wishes and veto the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. After all, the people have called repeatedly on the Federal Government to get its spending under control. The President says he wants to eliminate the wasteful spending, too. Our plan delivers, and yet, our bill is being vetoed. The people want relief from a Federal tax burden that's consuming 26 percent of their family's monthly income. The President says he wants to provide tax relief too, and even says he supports the child tax credit. Our plan delivers, and yet, our bill is being vetoed. The people have asked us to reform a welfare system that sucks up tax dollars yet offers few incentives for welfare recipients to move from dependency to independence. The President says he wants welfare reform, too, in fact, he made it a major part of his Presidential campaign. Our plan delivers, and yet, our bill is being vetoed. Most important, the people are calling on us to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. The President says he wants a balanced budget, too, and agrees that we can get there in 7 years. Our plan delivers, and yet again, the President is stopping it in its tracks with today's veto. ``I want a budget that includes all of that,'' says the President-- ``the spending cuts, tax relief, welfare reform, while it balances in 7 years using honest numbers. I just do not want your budget.'' And somehow the President manages to say it with a straight face, even though he has bogged down the budget negotiations by refusing to offer a comprehensive, 7-year plan of his own. Mr. President, despite all the rhetoric and all the campaign promises, this administration has no real interest in eliminating the Federal deficit and changing the status quo in Washington--they would have to curtail their spending to do it. Today's veto clearly demonstrates the President is not ready to cut spending. And that has been the pattern in Washington for a very long time--once the Government has gotten its hands on the taxpayers' dollars and squirreled them away into the Federal Treasury, Congress, and the President will spend them. My legislation, the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act, will help ensure that when pork-barrel spending is trimmed from the budget, it is the taxpayers--not the big spenders on Capitol Hill--who will benefit. For years, Members of Congress have bragged to their constituents about trying to cut the fat out of the Federal budget. Yet as time has passed, Federal spending has gone up, our annual budget deficits have gone up, and the debt we're leaving our children and grandchildren has gone all the way up to $5 trillion. How can this be? If all of these claims of cutting the budget are right, should spending not go down, not up? Well, if you are speaking in plain English, it should--a cut means you spend less money this year than you did last year. But in the language of Congress--``Hill-Speak'' as some call it--a cut is not necessarily a cut. For example, under our plan to balance the budget, Medicare spending will grow from $181 billion this year to $277 billion in the year 2002--a 53-percent increase over the next 7 years. But because Medicare will not grow at the uncontrolled rates of the past, those who use Hill-Speak call this increase a ``cut.'' It does not make much sense, does it? And yet there is more. Every year, Congress is required to pass the 13 appropriations bills which fund the Federal Government--everything from the National Highway System and NASA to foreign aid and the Postal Service. While many of these programs are important and worthwhile, too many tax dollars are still being used for wasteful pork-barrel projects, which either benefit certain regions of the country at the expense of others, have not been previously authorized by law, or are simply not worth the tax dollars spent on them. As a member of the Senate pork busters coalition, I have worked to eliminate this wasteful abuse of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. For example, during debate on the energy and water appropriations bill, I offered an amendment that would have eliminated $40 million from the Appalachian Regional Commission. I did not believe Minnesota taxpayers should be subsidizing so-called economic assistance to the 13 States, located mostly in the Southeast, which make up the ARC. But due to the program's strong support by Senators whose States benefit from ARC, this amendment was rejected by the Senate. What is worse about our appropriations system is that even if amendments like mine had passed, these funds are not returned to the Treasury or the taxpayers. Instead, they are placed into a slush fund which can be spent on other programs. In other words, even when we are successful in passing amendments to cut appropriations spending in these areas, these funds are not used for deficit reduction; they are used for additional spending in other areas. As I said before, only in a place like Washington dominated by Hill-Speak is a cut not necessarily a cut--and the result is a $5 trillion debt for our children and grandchildren. In an effort to end this abuse of taxpayer dollars and to return honesty to the budget process, the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act changes the rules of the budget process to ensure that any funds cut in appropriations bills be dedicated back to the Treasury for the purposes of deficit reduction. By replacing the current Congressional slush fund with a taxpayers' lockbox, my legislation guarantees that when Congress cuts funding for wasteful programs, those dollars are returned to their rightful owners--the taxpayers. In addition, my legislation creates a new revenue lockbox, which is geared toward our 7-year balanced budget plan. As we all know, when Congress considers a long-term budget, we take into account economic projections which estimate the amount of tax revenue that will come into the Treasury over the next 7 years. We then use these revenue estimates to determine the extent to which Federal spending can grow without resulting in a budget deficit in the year 2002. While these estimates by the Congressional Budget Office are generally on the mark, they are, of course, simply estimates. It is likely that even more dollars will come into the Treasury as a result of our balanced budget plan, given the fact that we include tax relief designed to stimulate economic growth, create new jobs and turn tax users into productive taxpayers. These additional dollars, however, should not be used to feed Congress' appetite for spending; instead, any additional revenue that results from our growth plan should be returned to the [[Page S 18102]] taxpayers in the form of additional tax relief. After all, these funds were made available because of the hard work and productivity of the American people; it makes sense to give those dollars back to the taxpayers and encourage even greater productivity, rather than handing them to Washington for more pork-barrel spending. Even now, we can see the very problem my legislation is designed to address. As part of the budget negotiations, President Clinton has already tried to seize more of the dollars we are returning to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, to use them for--you guessed it-- more spending. The bottom line estimates are, the President wants to spend $400 billion more than our Budget Act of 1995 called for--$400 billion more of your money. Well, the taxpayers cannot afford for us to let him do that today, nor can they afford it in the future. We must ensure that tax dollars are returned to their rightful owners: the taxpayers, not the Government. And that is just what my revenue lockbox does--it requires that any revenues above and beyond current estimates be used for tax cuts and/or additional deficit reduction. It ensures taxpayers that their hard- earned dollars will no longer be automatically spent by the Government. It ends the misperception that tax dollars belong to the Government, rather than the taxpayers. Most importantly, it restores honesty to the budget process and ensures that a spending cut is truly a spending cut, even in Washington. Mr. President, the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act earns its name by locking in real deficit reduction, while protecting the American taxpayers when Congress just cannot seem to say ``no'' on its own. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for the taxpayers by supporting this timely legislation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain. Mr. President, in light of what is happening today at the White House--with President Clinton carrying out his threat to veto our plan to balance the Federal budget--this legislation could not be introduced at a more appropriate time. The American people ought to be disgusted that the President would turn his back on their wishes and veto the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. After all, the people have called repeatedly on the Federal Government to get its spending under control. The President says he wants to eliminate the wasteful spending, too. Our plan delivers, and yet, our bill is being vetoed. The people want relief from a Federal tax burden that's consuming 26 percent of their family's monthly income. The President says he wants to provide tax relief too, and even says he supports the child tax credit. Our plan delivers, and yet, our bill is being vetoed. The people have asked us to reform a welfare system that sucks up tax dollars yet offers few incentives for welfare recipients to move from dependency to independence. The President says he wants welfare reform, too, in fact, he made it a major part of his Presidential campaign. Our plan delivers, and yet, our bill is being vetoed. Most important, the people are calling on us to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. The President says he wants a balanced budget, too, and agrees that we can get there in 7 years. Our plan delivers, and yet again, the President is stopping it in its tracks with today's veto. ``I want a budget that includes all of that,'' says the President-- ``the spending cuts, tax relief, welfare reform, while it balances in 7 years using honest numbers. I just do not want your budget.'' And somehow the President manages to say it with a straight face, even though he has bogged down the budget negotiations by refusing to offer a comprehensive, 7-year plan of his own. Mr. President, despite all the rhetoric and all the campaign promises, this administration has no real interest in eliminating the Federal deficit and changing the status quo in Washington--they would have to curtail their spending to do it. Today's veto clearly demonstrates the President is not ready to cut spending. And that has been the pattern in Washington for a very long time--once the Government has gotten its hands on the taxpayers' dollars and squirreled them away into the Federal Treasury, Congress, and the President will spend them. My legislation, the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act, will help ensure that when pork-barrel spending is trimmed from the budget, it is the taxpayers--not the big spenders on Capitol Hill--who will benefit. For years, Members of Congress have bragged to their constituents about trying to cut the fat out of the Federal budget. Yet as time has passed, Federal spending has gone up, our annual budget deficits have gone up, and the debt we're leaving our children and grandchildren has gone all the way up to $5 trillion. How can this be? If all of these claims of cutting the budget are right, should spending not go down, not up? Well, if you are speaking in plain English, it should--a cut means you spend less money this year than you did last year. But in the language of Congress--``Hill-Speak'' as some call it--a cut is not necessarily a cut. For example, under our plan to balance the budget, Medicare spending will grow from $181 billion this year to $277 billion in the year 2002--a 53-percent increase over the next 7 years. But because Medicare will not grow at the uncontrolled rates of the past, those who use Hill-Speak call this increase a ``cut.'' It does not make much sense, does it? And yet there is more. Every year, Congress is required to pass the 13 appropriations bills which fund the Federal Government--everything from the National Highway System and NASA to foreign aid and the Postal Service. While many of these programs are important and worthwhile, too many tax dollars are still being used for wasteful pork-barrel projects, which either benefit certain regions of the country at the expense of others, have not been previously authorized by law, or are simply not worth the tax dollars spent on them. As a member of the Senate pork busters coalition, I have worked to eliminate this wasteful abuse of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. For example, during debate on the energy and water appropriations bill, I offered an amendment that would have eliminated $40 million from the Appalachian Regional Commission. I did not believe Minnesota taxpayers should be subsidizing so-called economic assistance to the 13 States, located mostly in the Southeast, which make up the ARC. But due to the program's strong support by Senators whose States benefit from ARC, this amendment was rejected by the Senate. What is worse about our appropriations system is that even if amendments like mine had passed, these funds are not returned to the Treasury or the taxpayers. Instead, they are placed into a slush fund which can be spent on other programs. In other words, even when we are successful in passing amendments to cut appropriations spending in these areas, these funds are not used for deficit reduction; they are used for additional spending in other areas. As I said before, only in a place like Washington dominated by Hill-Speak is a cut not necessarily a cut--and the result is a $5 trillion debt for our children and grandchildren. In an effort to end this abuse of taxpayer dollars and to return honesty to the budget process, the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act changes the rules of the budget process to ensure that any funds cut in appropriations bills be dedicated back to the Treasury for the purposes of deficit reduction. By replacing the current Congressional slush fund with a taxpayers' lockbox, my legislation guarantees that when Congress cuts funding for wasteful programs, those dollars are returned to their rightful owners--the taxpayers. In addition, my legislation creates a new revenue lockbox, which is geared toward our 7-year balanced budget plan. As we all know, when Congress considers a long-term budget, we take into account economic projections which estimate the amount of tax revenue that will come into the Treasury over the next 7 years. We then use these revenue estimates to determine the extent to which Federal spending can grow without resulting in a budget deficit in the year 2002. While these estimates by the Congressional Budget Office are generally on the mark, they are, of course, simply estimates. It is likely that even more dollars will come into the Treasury as a result of our balanced budget plan, given the fact that we include tax relief designed to stimulate economic growth, create new jobs and turn tax users into productive taxpayers. These additional dollars, however, should not be used to feed Congress' appetite for spending; instead, any additional revenue that results from our growth plan should be returned to the [[Page S 18102]] taxpayers in the form of additional tax relief. After all, these funds were made available because of the hard work and productivity of the American people; it makes sense to give those dollars back to the taxpayers and encourage even greater productivity, rather than handing them to Washington for more pork-barrel spending. Even now, we can see the very problem my legislation is designed to address. As part of the budget negotiations, President Clinton has already tried to seize more of the dollars we are returning to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, to use them for--you guessed it-- more spending. The bottom line estimates are, the President wants to spend $400 billion more than our Budget Act of 1995 called for--$400 billion more of your money. Well, the taxpayers cannot afford for us to let him do that today, nor can they afford it in the future. We must ensure that tax dollars are returned to their rightful owners: the taxpayers, not the Government. And that is just what my revenue lockbox does--it requires that any revenues above and beyond current estimates be used for tax cuts and/or additional deficit reduction. It ensures taxpayers that their hard- earned dollars will no longer be automatically spent by the Government. It ends the misperception that tax dollars belong to the Government, rather than the taxpayers. Most importantly, it restores honesty to the budget process and ensures that a spending cut is truly a spending cut, even in Washington. Mr. President, the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act earns its name by locking in real deficit reduction, while protecting the American taxpayers when Congress just cannot seem to say ``no'' on its own. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for the taxpayers by supporting this timely legislation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of S. 1452 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of Senate Joint Resolution 31. I did not come to the floor to cite case law or precedent or to dispute the predictions and the pronouncements of the constitutional scholars. I will leave that to the lawyers in this Chamber. But I came here to tell you what I believe in my heart as an average American, the son of a veteran, the kind of person who puts his hand across his chest during the national anthem and gets a lump in his throat during parades when the Stars and Stripes go by. What is it about this multicolored piece of cloth that inspires such emotion? Perhaps it is the high price this Nation has paid for the honor of flying it. Fifty-three thousand Americans gave their lives defending this piece of cloth in World War I; 292,000 Americans in the Second World War; 33,000 Americans in Korea; 47,000 Americans in Vietnam; most recently, 138 Americans gave their lives defending this piece of cloth in the Persian Gulf war. And when the bodies of those defenders of freedom were returned home, it was this piece of cloth atop their caskets that caught and cradled the tears of their loved ones. In my heart, I know that the men and women who sacrificed everything they had to give on behalf of this flag and the ideals it represents would be heartsick to see it spit upon, trampled over, burned, desecrated. This is so much more than just another piece of cloth. Mr. President, in a nation like ours that celebrates diversity, there is little that ties us together as a people. We come from different nationalities. We practice different religions. We belong to different races. We live in different corners of this immense Nation, speak different languages, eat different foods. There is so much that should seemingly divide us. But under this flag, we are united. Far from being just a piece of cloth, the flag of the United States of America is a true, national treasure. Because of everything it symbolizes, we have always held our flag with the greatest esteem, with reverence. That is why we fly it so high above us. When the flag is aloft, it stands above political division, above partisanship. Under this flag, we are united. And Americans are united in calling for a constitutional amendment allowing them to protect their flag. When you ask them if burning the U.S. flag is an appropriate expression of freedom of speech, nearly four out of every five Americans say no, it is not. In my home State of Minnesota, nearly 70 percent of my neighbors support Senate Joint Resolution 31, and have called on Congress to pass it this year. Mr. President, there is no Minnesotan who has been more vocal in this fight than Daniel Ludwig of Red Wing, and I am so proud of his efforts. Just this summer, Mr. Ludwig had the great honor of being elected National Commander of the American Legion during the organization's 77th annual national convention. Mr. Ludwig knows what the flag means to the soldiers and veterans of the American Legion. He is a Vietnam-era veteran of the U.S. Navy who spent 8 years in the military, and he told me that passage of the amendment we debate today remains the American Legion's No. 1 priority. ``We are so close to victory,'' he said. ``Protecting the American flag from desecration can be our greatest victory.'' It has been too long in coming. Since 1989, the year the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws banning desecration of the flag, 49 of our 50 States have passed resolutions directing Congress and their State legislators to support a flag protection amendment. Our legislation restores to the States the right snatched away from them by the court to enact flag-protection laws. It does not force the States into action. It does not set punishments. It says simply that ``the Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' This amendment returns to the people the power to pass the flag- protection laws they feel are appropriate for their communities. Of course, there are those who are opposed to this amendment, individuals who do not believe the people can be entrusted with the responsibility of amending the Constitution. They think Congress should play the role of protector, a guardian body that exists to save the people from their own foolishness. It is not something we enter into recklessly, but it is the right of the people to amend their own Constitution. Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to understand that times and circumstances change, and a Constitution too rigid to bend with the times was likely to break. They created the amendment process for that very purpose. We amend the Constitution when circumstances tell us we must. Mr. President, we need this amendment because the soul of our society seems to have been overtaken by the tennis-shoe theology of ``just do it.'' If it feels good, just do it. Forget about obligation to society. Forget about personal responsibility. Forget about duty, honor, country. ``If it feels good, just do it,'' they say. If it makes you feel good to burn a flag, just do it. After all, it is just a piece of cloth. Just a piece of cloth? Tell that to the men, women, and children who each day stand before the black granite walls of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, tearfully tracing with their finger the name of a loved one chiseled deep into the stone. Tell that to the veterans of the Korean war, who have come by the thousands to their new memorial just across the reflecting pool. They see the statues of the soldiers, poised in a battle march, the horror of war forever frozen in the hardened steel, and they remember those who did not come back. Tell it to the veterans of World War I and World War II, who each year don their uniforms for the annual Veteran's Day parades. Time may have slowed their march and stiffened their salute, but it has not diminished their passion for the flag. To say that our flag is just a piece of cloth--a rag that can be defiled and trampled upon and even burnt into ashes--is to dishonor every soldier who ever fought to protect it. Every star, every stripe on this flag was bought through their sacrifice. Mr. President, as I walked to the Capitol this morning and saw the flags on either side of the great dome flapping in a gentle breeze, I knew I could not stand here today, cold and analytical, and pretend I did not have a stake in this emotional debate. It is average Americans like me who cannot understand why anyone would burn a flag. It is Americans like me who cannot understand why the Senate would not act decisively, overwhelmingly, to pass an amendment affording our flag the protection it deserves. I know in my heart that this simple piece of cloth is worthy of constitutional protection, and I urge my colleagues to search their own hearts and support Senate Joint Resolution 31. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report. I am proud to say that I served on the conference committee which produced this report. As a freshman Senator, I was particularly honored to play a role in crafting legislation which will benefit so many Americans who find themselves victimized by the social costs of frivolous litigation. The legislation before us today, H.R. 1058, is entitled the ``Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.'' In my opinion, a better title would have been the ``Investors, Workers and Consumers Legal Protection Act.'' After all, this legislation is designed to protect those very people--investors, workers and consumers--from the high cost of meritless and abusive litigation. Today, we have an opportunity to make some modest and reasonable changes which will help weed out the most abusive lawsuits in the field of securities litigation while at the same time, preserving the right of action for shareholders who are truly victimized by securities fraud. I am particularly pleased with a number of the provisions in this bill, including: Mandatory sanctions against attorneys who file abusive lawsuits; Codification of the pleading standard adopted by the second circuit court of appeals; Elimination of bounty payments to named plaintiff, plaintiff referral fees, and undeserved windfall damages; A safe harbor for forward-looking statements to encourage companies to voluntarily disclose information to help investors make better decisions; and A reduction in the level of liability for secondary defendants who do not knowingly engage in securities fraud. In addition, I am pleased that this legislation does not extend the current statute of limitations established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1991 Lampf decision. That's one year from the date the plaintiff knew of the alleged violation and 3 years from the date the alleged violation occurred. While some critics of this legislation have seized upon the statute of limitations as a wedge to defeat this important bill, they have failed to present a convincing case for why this period should be extended. They have tried to suggest that the current statute of limitations has curbed the number of meritorious cases filed in the courts, but the evidence proves otherwise. According to the administrative office of the U.S. courts, during the 4 years prior to the Lampf decision, the average number of cases filed was 162 per year. In the 4-year period since Lampf, the average number of cases filed has risen to 278 per year, an increase of nearly 72 percent. Contrary to the claims of the bill's opponents, securities litigation has increased under Lampf, not decreased. This should not be surprising, given the fact that many of these claims can now be filed within days, even hours, after a movement in the market. There are a number of other reasons why the current statute of limitations should be preserved. A longer period would simply allow speculators too much time to wait and see how their decisions to buy or sell securities turned out, permitting them to abuse our legal system to cover their losses in the market. In addition, a longer period of limitations would make it more difficult for innocent defendants to protect themselves in court. Forcing companies to keep track of every rise and fall of their stock value for 5 years and allowing strike suit attorneys to attack job creators well after the memory of a reasonable person would have faded would only lead to more frivolous litigation, more exorbitant settlements, and more pain for investors, workers and consumers. Under current law, plaintiffs with meritorious claims have more than enough time to file their suits; unfortunately, so too do strike suit attorneys. Even with the enactment of this bill, some meritless claims will survive. If our intent is to reverse the current litigation explosion, why would we want to invite more frivolous lawsuits by extending the statute of limitations? In June, when this legislation was debated on the Senate floor, 52 of our colleagues wisely decided to retain the current statute of limitations. That was the right decision in June and it is the right decision today, and I am pleased that this conference report preserves current law. Finally, I'd like to say something about how this legislation will benefit everyday Americans. Securities litigation reform is not a subject discussed every morning around the kitchen table, but its results will have a major and beneficial impact on most Americans. It will protect the worker who worries about being laid off because his employer had to pay attorneys' fees instead of his salary. It will help the consumer who has to pay higher prices for products today because of the hidden cost of frivolous litigation. It will pay off for the legitimate investors and pensioners whose life savings are being jeopardized by strike suit attorneys. And finally, it will 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 for the sake of these Americans that we have put in long hours of hard work to craft this balanced and reasonable bill. None of us are totally satisfied with this legislation. There are some supporters who feel that certain provisions in the conference report go too far. [[Page S 17994]] There are others like me who would like to see this legislation go further. But I think we can all agree that this conference report does what it's supposed to do: protect legitimate investors, save jobs, and preserve the right of actions for true victims of securities fraud. When I think of this bill, I am reminded of a quote by one of the strike suit attorneys who testified on this subject before the Senate Banking Committee. In a moment of honesty, this prominent and wealthy securities action lawsuit attorney said: ``I have the best practice of law in the world. I have no clients.'' In my opinion, these words best illustrate the problem that this legislation is designed to address. I commend the managers of the conference, Senator D'Amato and Congressman Bliley, for crafting this report, as well as our colleagues, Senators Domenici and Dodd for pushing this issue for so many years. As a conferee, I am proud to have played a role in this legislation and urge my colleagues to adopt the conference report.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, if there be no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in adjournment under the provisions of Senate Concurrect Resolution 32.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding [[Page S 17512]] the adjournment of the Senate, that on Tuesday, November 21, committees have from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. to file any legislative or executive reported business.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, it is funny, I hear a lot of talk this morning on the floor about compromising with the President on our budget. I say it is funny because he has not officially even received it yet. He says he is going to veto it. But I say, let us give him the opportunity to do that. Let us give him the chance to veto this budget. Let him look in that camera and into the eyes of the American people and tell them he does not want this balanced budget, he does not think Americans deserve it and, what is more, he does not think they should have a tax cut to go along with it, and that money really belongs to Washington to spend. I might just be a lowly freshman from Minnesota in this body, a plebe by the standards of some of the more senior Members. But I know why I am here: Because I told the people of Minnesota if they would elect me, I would come here and I would work to balance the budget, to reduce the size and the scope of this bloated bureaucracy that we call the Federal Government; and by doing that we would be able to allow them to keep a little bit more of their own money in the form of a tax cut. I hear my colleagues on the other side saying how people do not have the money to spend anymore in this country. Well, that follows 30 years of Democratic programs--but, more importantly, 30 years of Democratic tax hikes that have taken that money from our families and sent it to Washington. Really, what kind of deal has been talked about on the floor here this morning? What kind of deal are the Democrats and the White House talking about? Let me put some of this in perspective. Our budget plan talks about spending $12 trillion over the next 7 years. The White House and the liberal leadership of the Democrats in the Senate and House want to spend about $12.5 trillion, at a minimum. Some are willing to work out any kind of agreement today so that we can go home and have a long weekend. How are we going to tell our taxpayers that we are willing to spend another $500 billion of their money, collapse on this very important issue, so that can have a long weekend? How do we tell the taxpayers that? Our budget increases spending on all these programs. Our spending goes up every year. If you listen to those on the other side of the aisle, it is like we are gutting everything that this country has stood for, that somehow this country is going to collapse if we save 5 percent over the next 7 years. By the way, we are only about 1 percent apart on the Medicare, compared to the President's proposal and ours. In your own budgets, if you are making a dollar and they say you can have 99 cents, not a dollar, are you going to say, ``I am going to collapse''? We cannot save that 1 percent? Our budget increases spending on Medicare 64 percent, from $174 billion this year to nearly $289 billion in the year 2002--per capita. Everybody that will be on Medicare will be going from about $4,800 a year to $6,700 per person a year. That is not a cut. That is not a collapse. That is not solving all the problems or changing the way we do business here in Washington. My colleagues on the other side want to just throw more money at it and take more from the taxpayers and let Washington spend more. Should we agree to more of the same--programs that have failed--just to give them more money to spend? Where do we get all this money? The Government does not produce any revenues. It only can collect them and dispense them. I am fighting for something that is fair; I am fighting for the taxpayers. I have been listening to the statements on the floor all morning, and also reading some of the comments in the newspaper following last night's real historic vote on our balanced budget legislation. I found myself then thinking about Abraham Lincoln. This was a man who knew something about dealing with adversity. He was elected President to lead the Nation through some of the darkest hours. The Civil War had divided the country, pitting neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother. Yet, he found a way then to use the power of the Presidency to inspire the people--not with the harsh rhetoric of hate, but with a vision that something better lay ahead. His words gave people hope to continue fighting for what they believed so strongly was right. So you know Abraham Lincoln was speaking from the heart, and drawing on the experiences of his own life, when he said, ``Nearly all men can stand adversity * * * but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.'' I am not one who is quick to edit the words of a President that I admire very much, but after nearly a year service in this Chamber, and especially after the antics we have been subjected to over the last month, I think Abraham Lincoln's words would ring equally true if you changed them slightly to read this way: ``Nearly all men can stand adversity* * * but if you want to test a man's character, take away his power.'' Nearly every Republican here knows how tough it is to have that power taken away and be forced to serve in the minority. Many colleagues on this side of the aisle have been in the majority only to be shifted to the minority after the 1986 elections. It is tough, it is an adjustment, and it is not a lot of fun. But this year it has led to a lot of irresponsible politicking, and it has all been at the expense of truth and substantive debate. Mr. President, what would you do if you were walking along and stepped into a pool of quicksand, and before you knew it, you were up to your waist, sinking quickly? At first, you would begin to do a lot of shouting, like we hear from the other side. You probably would not care too much about what you were saying, as long as you said it loudly and were attracting a lot of attention. It did not stop the sinking sensation, of course, but at least you felt like you were doing something. Finally, a political consultant happens to come along--how convenient. They are brilliant at putting the right ``spin'' on things. Maybe they will figure a way out for you. ``How convincingly can you say `the Republicans are cutting Medicare and putting senior citizens at grave risk?' '' asks the consultant. Well, you are willing to try anything at this point, since the only attention your shouting has gotten you so far were the services of a political consultant. So you shout it--forget that it is not even close to the truth, and that you do not even really believe what you are saying, but you are fighting for your life here. Anything goes. I just heard the Senator from Massachusetts say, ``It will all depend on 1996. This will lead to the election of [[Page S 17455]] 1996.'' Republicans have an eye on an election, too, but it was the 1994 election. We are trying to do what the taxpayers, the American voters, sent us here to do, while the Democrats are looking to 1996 and trying to put up some kind of a hope of regaining this Chamber. Pretty soon, this quicksand reaches up to your chin. ``Any more brilliant ideas?'' you ask the consultant. ``How about shouting louder this time that the Republicans are hurting children and the poor. That has always worked before for me.'' You roll your eyes, but you are getting more desperate, and so you start yelling for all that you are worth that the Republicans in Congress are hurting children and hurting the poor. Of course, it is getting harder to shout because the quicksand is brushing up to the corners of your mouth. Still, nobody is paying attention. ``All right, the old tricks are not working anymore, so it is time for desperate measures,'' says the consultant. ``I guess I am going to have to throw you this vine, but you have to keep shouting while I get it over to you.'' He tosses you the vine, and with your last breath, you scream, ``I want a balanced budget--just not this one.'' With a final ``glug,'' you sink out of sight. The political consultant would shake his head and say, ``Gee,'' as he heads off searching for his next victim, ``even I could have told you people were not gullible enough to swallow that line.'' ``We want a balanced budget, just not this one. We want a balanced budget, but we want to spend more money in order to balance the budget. We want to meet a compromise with our Republican friends, but it has to be our way; we want to spend more.'' They are talking about coming to our senses. Ask the taxpayer if another $500 billion in spending is coming to your senses. Mr. President, the opposition is sinking in the quicksand of public opinion. Not even their high-paid consultants and political spin doctors can put a good spin on a bad message. Instead of facing the financial and moral crises that are challenging this Nation, they want to ignore it and point fingers. If you are not right, you demagog it to death. If you do not have a plan of your own, you blast the opposition's. If you are not ready to do the people's business, stall them. If your own leadership is afraid to lead, you can resort to name calling and personal attacks. Well, Mr. President, the more I hear from my colleagues across the aisle, the more difficult it is to understand how they can actually believe their own desperate words. They claim this is a dark poison over this Capitol. Poison? It is far from it. What I hear in this Chamber and in the other body is the voice of the people. After years of darkness, the election finally ushered in some light and some tough and that truth is what we are hearing today. If my colleagues are seeing the truth, and it look like poison to them, they need to take a hard look at just who they are representing because they are not representing the people who are calling my office. They have lost the power, and it is scaring them silly, and as they grasp for the last vine, look what it's done to them. Mr. President, yesterday we passed what I believe will become the defining piece of legislation of the 104th Congress. For the first time in a quarter century, we have balanced the budget, and we are doing it for our children and our future. We are cutting taxes for working class families. Of course the Democrats say, ``Not this balanced budget. We want a balanced budget.'' The President, in a 5-minute speech the other day said it 16 times, ``We want a balanced budget, but give us more money to do it.'' We are giving welfare recipients the opportunity to lift themselves out of a life of dependency and into society. We are preserving and strengthening the Medicare system for this generation and the next. We are doing all of this because we believe we must. As Abraham Lincoln warned, our character has indeed been tested by the power with which this Congress has been entrusted--entrusted to us by people like Duane Bonneman who just sent me this fax here this morning, and let me read it quickly. He said in the fax, ``You are in difficult days. Be strong. Be courageous. Never give up. The prevention of the worst economic disaster in world history lies in your hands. Ignore the media. Ignore the polls. Do what you need to do to get it done. But please, don't give up.'' Mr. President, I think the Democrats must be getting the same type of phone calls we are. I just want to say I am not here to give up. Again, I say I know why I am here in the Senate. It is because the people of Minnesota sent me here to help balance the budget and cut taxes. I am not going to do anything short of that. I am not willing to compromise if it means taking more money from average families so that some bureaucrat in Washington can spend it. I am willing to make sure that we have a fair and equitable budget, one that meets the needs and responsibilities of this Nation, but not one that robs our children's future. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise with great pride today in support of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. I hear a lot of talk from the other side of the aisle about cuts. The major cuts are going to be in Washington's ability to take more of the taxpayers' money. The hidden agenda is a balanced budget and a brighter future. And, if there has been a growing gap of wealth, it has occurred under Democratic programs, and it is time to change that. This bill, more than anything else, is about promises--making promises, and keeping promises. The American people have every reason to be cynical about political promises. Yet something resonated with the voters when we went to the people last November and promised we would take this country in a better direction if they elected a new majority to Congress. We laid out a plan for the Nation's future unlike anything the people had been promised over the last 40 years. The legislation before us today is proof that there is a better way-- and the vision it reflects is based on two fundamental promises we made to the voters: First, we promised we would balance the budget in 7 years. And second, we promised we would cut taxes for working-class families. Mr. President, the centerpiece of the legislation before us is our promise to balance the budget by the year 2002. If you want to know why 83 percent of the American public say balancing the budget should be the top priority of this Congress, these statistics speak volumes: Every year, the Federal Government is spending billions and billions more than it takes in. As a result of four decades of fiscal insanity, the national debt today stands at nearly $5 trillion. Every child born today in the United States of America comes into this world already saddled with more than $19,000 in debt. 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 certainly do not deserve. Ask an economist about the other benefits of a balanced budget, and they will reel off an impressive list of reasons why we ought to move forward. By the time 7 years have passed and the budget is brought into balance: GDP will grow by an additional $10.8 billion; interest rates will drop, and Americans will boost their spending power through an additional $32.1 billion in disposable income; the buyers of a $100,000 home would save more than $10,000 over the life of a 30-year mortgage; an additional 104,000 family homes would be built and 600,000 more automobiles would be sold; and businesses would be empowered to create new and higher paying jobs--as many as an additional 6.1 million new jobs, by some estimates. Impressive statistics, but 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 dog and a cat and lot of monthly bills, a balanced Federal budget would put at least $1,800 a year back into the family bank account. That is a pretty good incentive for passing a balanced budget in 1995: save money and get a tax break, because we have also promised to cut taxes for middle-class families--another promise we are keeping with this legislation. This Congress is no longer willing to let the Government gamble away the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars as if they belonged to Washington. In fact, we are going to keep those dollars out of the Government's hands in the first place. The centerpiece of our $245-billion tax relief package is the $500 per-child tax credit, and I am proud that my colleagues stood with my good friend, Senator Abraham, and I to ensure that this desperately needed provision remains at the heart of our balanced budget plan. 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 annually to families who work hard, pay their bills, and struggle every day to care for their children without relying on the Government. In addition, 3.5 million households nationwide will find that the $500 per-child tax credit has completely eliminated their tax liability. With our Balanced Budget Act, this Congress has kept the solemn promises we made to the American people. Yet without even waiting for the bill to arrive at his desk, President Clinton is promising to veto it and stop the balanced budget in its tracks. The President says he wants a balanced budget--wants it wholeheartedly, he claims. Balancing the budget was one of the central themes of his 1992 campaign, and I remember when he said: ``I'll tell you why you should vote for me. I know how to balance a budget. I've balanced 11 budgets as Governor of Arkansas. One of the [[Page S 17289]] first things I'll do when I get to Washington is send Congress a balanced budget.'' Of course, that turned out to be a pie-crust promise--easily made, easily broken. Since taking office nearly 3 years ago, Bill Clinton has never presented Congress with a budget that balances--or comes anywhere close, for that matter. In the last two plans he has dropped on the Capitol doorstep, the deficit hovers around $200 billion every year, far, far into the future. And we voted on both of those plans here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Both failed 99 to zero, and these are the plans that the President brags about. Mr. President, Congress is going to balance the budget because we promised the American people we would. We are going to cut taxes because we promised the American people we would. We are going to turn this Government around and start putting it to work on behalf of the taxpayers because we promised the American people we would. ``The Man from Hope'' is quickly earning the reputation around here as ``the Man from Hope Not.'' He says he wants a balanced budget, but he secretly hopes he'll never have to sign one. Mr. President, Bill Clinton cannot continue to say in public that he supports a balanced budget, tax cuts, and welfare reform, and then return to the private confines of the Oval Office to veto every piece of legislation that would bring the budget into balance, cut taxes, and reform welfare. My colleagues and I have great dreams for this Nation and its children, Mr. President, and the American people are counting on us to heed the words of the great Winston Churchill and ``never, never, never give up.'' With a balanced budget at stake and the future of this Nation at stake along with it, this Congress has no intention of giving up and turning our backs on this moment in history. That is a promise. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.