Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, we paused last week, as we do each November 11th, to honor American veterans who have given so much to their country for the cause of freedom. As a nation, we stop on Veterans Day to express our gratitude for their service and their sacrifice. And it is worth questioning whether the freedom which we embrace in America would have spread across the world had those sacrifices not been made. Because of their profound love for their country, veterans understand better than many people how important it is that we face the problems plaguing this Nation. ``Congress is doing exactly what I want it to do, in spite of some who oppose the progress we are making,'' wrote a disabled veteran from Shoreview, MN, who urged me to continue pressing for a balanced budget. So in much the same way Americans once united during wartime, we are now united in peace, working together as a nation to create a Government strong enough to meet the needs of its veterans today, while it safeguards the freedom our veterans ensured for us. That is why I find it so appalling that veterans would be singled out by the President and his administration to be the latest political pawns in their budget maneuverings. Mr. President, I have received a copy of a press release issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs just 2 days ago, and I am utterly disgusted by the scare tactics it employs and the blatant misrepresentations it contains. ``Nearly 3.6 million veterans, widows, and children may have to wait on their monthly benefits checks due to the Government shutdown,'' it begins. ``Unfortunately, some veterans and their families may become budget casualties,'' said VA Secretary Jesse Brown. Suggesting that veterans--many of whom sustained grave injuries and lost close friends and family members in battle--could become casualties themselves, this time of a budget war, is tasteless and extreme. It is shocking to me that the U.S. Government would dishonor our veterans this way, playing on their fears and resorting to these kinds of tactics in an attempt to score political points for the President. In his press release, Secretary Brown claims that all President Clinton has asked for from Congress is a stopgap spending bill free of controversial riders. That is precisely what Congress will deliver to the President this week--a stopgap bill that gives him the funds he needs to run the Government, and asks him to pledge he will work together with Congress to balance the budget within 7 years. Yet even before he sees our bill, President Clinton is vowing to veto it. Mr. President, the men and women who have so proudly served in this Nation's Armed Forces will not be left in the cold, and to suggest that the Government would ever allow that to happen is the height of irresponsibility. By signing the temporary spending legislation this Congress is preparing to send to the White House, veterans benefits would be designated as an essential Government service. I urge the President to do so, so that this Nation's veterans will continue to receive their monthly benefit checks on schedule and without delay. The press release from the Department of Veterans Affairs, however, underscores the lengths this administration is willing to go as they attempt to derail our efforts to balance the budget. But do not be taken in by the political rhetoric--it is inflammatory and it is harsh, but it is nothing but rhetoric. A similar situation occurred earlier this year, when the President tried to gain some political mileage scaring senior citizens with his Medicare misinformation. And so it was only a matter of time before he would go after the Nation's veterans, too. It is indeed unfortunate that this President is so out of touch with the military and the sacrifices demanded by those who serve in uniform that he would attempt to frighten American veterans in such a manner. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in denouncing these desperate tactics. They disgrace our veterans and serve no useful purpose in the very serious debate over the financial future of this great Nation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, although the period of official mourning in Israel for slain Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has ended, the time for reflection on his legacy has not. Supporters of Israel in America and around the world continue to ponder the incredible sacrifices made by Yitzhak Rabin during his relentless pursuit of peace in the Middle East. Many people continue to draw great personal strength and inspiration from the way Rabin conducted his heroic life until his tragic and untimely death. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following statements on Yitzhak Rabin by leaders of the Jewish community in my home State of Minnesota be included in the Record. Mr. Frank R. Berman: ``It is with much grief that we mourn the tragic assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. I had the honor of knowing the Prime Minister and came to hold him in the highest regard. He was a great leader and visionary for Israel as well as for peace- loving people everywhere. I know that the Jewish community and all citizens of Minnesota join me in expressing our deeply felt condolences to the government and people of Israel and to his family. We pray that his noble goal of peace in the Middle East will be fulfilled.'' Margo and Fred Berdass: ``We offer our heartfelt condolences to Mrs. Rabin and her family and to the people of Israel. We pray God give them the strength and wisdom to unite as a people and to overcome their great loss. May we all hope Israel may forge a policy all can support and that will lead to peace.'' Mr. Mike Fiterman: ``Prime Minister Rabin was more than a leader within his country--he was more of a visionary on how to make the world a better place. Although he was viewed as a brilliant military strategist, his role in the military only befits him as really a champion of peace and not war. His desire was never one of victory over opponent, but rather a desire to bring peace and security to his beloved country and the Israeli people. I had the great privilege of attending the historic peace signing on the White House lawn between the people of Israel and the Palestinian people. No one watching that day could help but be moved by the significance of that event whether you were personally present or watching from places around the world. It was one of the most emotional events I have ever been privileged to witness. With all of the various speeches, I think it was Prime Minister Rabin's words of `enough killing, enough war' that were the most moving. It was not the words he spoke, but the emotion in his voice that spoke volumes. He spoke not only of his desire for peace, but also of the enormous sacrifice he personally knew was needed to earn a lasting peace. None of us knew that day the ultimate sacrifice Yitzhak Rabin would make in the name of peace for his country, his people and the world. The sacrifice that Yitzhak Rabin made that day on the White House lawn was a true exhibit for all people around the world that nothing could ever be more important than people living in harmony with one another throughout the world. He showed us if two peoples warring over the centuries could put down their weapons and pick up a pen to sign a peace agreement, it was possible for all people around the world to achieve peace with their neighbors. Prime Minister Rabin's granddaughter during the memorial service, however, remembered him for all of us as not a statesman or a general, but as a warm person who loved his family and who tried to make the world a little better for all of us. Yitzhak Rabin will be missed by all peace loving people and will be a lasting reminder to all of us that we can never stop working toward a goal to do whatever we can to make the world a little better everyday and to continue to strive to bring peace to all the people of the world.''

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, to the ancient Greek philosophers, the Earth was the centerpoint of the entire universe. We were fixed in one position, while the Sun, Moon and planets revolved around us. It was, at the very least, an egotistical assumption. But it held, for about a thousand years, in fact, until Copernicus came along in the 16th century with a radical idea of his own. This Polish monk who moonlighted as an astronomer decided that the Greeks had it completely backward--that the Sun, in fact, was the central heavenly object and that the Earth, Moon, and their planetary cousins orbited around it. Even though he was dismissed as a heretic at the time, his revolutionary notion eventually changed the course of science forever. Well, about 350 years have gone by and today, once again, some long- held beliefs about what actually revolves around what are being challenged. And this time, we are talking about the Federal Government. Over the course of this century, the Federal Government has gradually developed the attitude that it rests at the center of the Nation's political power. The people exist to service it. The States exist to service it. After 40 years of especially excessive growth, everything today seems to revolve around the Federal Government, and the Government has spent billions of dollars, building up trillions of dollars of debt, trying to justify its existence and all the money we have continually poured into it. That is in spite of the Constitution, and the very protections built into it by the Founding Fathers to keep a bloated, arrogant, intrusive Federal Government from taking hold. In 1995, this Congress has the revolutionary idea that things worked better back in the old days, that the Federal Government should revolve around the people and the States, not the other way around. Our commitment to making that fundamental change is the driving force behind our plan to balance the budget by the year 2002. Unfortunately, trying to convince President Clinton that a balanced budget is worth fighting for is what this temporary Government shutdown is all about. To Congress, a balanced budget within 7 years is nonnegotiable, as it should be. To President Clinton, it is a political poker chip. He promised during his 1992 campaign that he would eliminate the deficit in 5 years. Since taking office, he has proposed goals ranging from 10 years down to 7, but in the two budget plans he has actually submitted to Congress, the budget never even comes close to balance. And yet he strode into a news conference yesterday to announce that: ``I proposed to Congress a balanced budget, but Congress refused to accept it.'' He used the phrase ``balance the budget'' 16 times in his brief statement, then walked away without facing the tough questions that would have followed, or should have followed, if the press would want to make the President accountable for his statements. What he neglected to mention is that his so-called balanced budgets were so ridiculously out of balance that they did not get a single vote--Republican or Democrat--when they were brought before this Chamber. Mr. President, I have received more than 500 telephone calls from my Minnesota constituents over the last 3 days, and the overwhelming majority of them--seven to one--agree with Congress. ``Stick by your guns and balance the budget,'' they are saying. Mark and Sally Crowell of Burnsville, MN felt so strongly about it that they sent me this fax yesterday--something they said they did on behalf of their four children. The fax says: If President Clinton doesn't want to balance the budget and wants to shut down the government, we guess we are going to have to put up with it for a while. They--the Democrats--have had 40 years to get it right and have shown that they have no intention of balancing the budget. Balance it for our children! Nobody wants a prolonged Government shutdown. Federal workers deserve better than that. The Americans who rely on Government services deserve better than that. Most of all, the taxpayers deserve better than that. But until we can get past all the campaign rhetoric, threats, and flat-out lies we are hearing from the White House--and until we get a commitment that we will have a balanced budget within 7 years--I am afraid we are not left with much of a choice. Mr. President, we have debunked a lot of the world's great myths over the last 350 years: We now know that the Earth revolves around the Sun, just as Copernicus suggested. If you sail toward the horizon, you will not fall off the edge of the world. Man can build a flying machine and even take it to the Moon, which, by the way, is not made out of green cheese after all. All that is left to prove is that Elvis really is dead and that President Clinton does support a balanced budget. The first one should be easy, but empty rhetoric aside, it is going to take a lot more evidence than we have seen over the past week to convince Congress and the American people that President Clinton is truly serious about wanting a balanced budget. I yield the floor. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for the transaction of morning business be extended to the hour of 1:30 p.m. today, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding Minnesotan who has been chosen as Minnesota's ``Teacher of the Year.'' A resident of Owatonna, MN, Donald Johnson has been teaching for more than 27 years. This year he was selected as teacher of the year for his significant contributions to education. Described by his principal at Owatonna Senior High School as a teacher who ``lights up the classroom,'' Mr. Johnson specializes in history with a focus on American, European, art, and religious history. Known for his quick wit and sense of humor, Mr. Johnson never shrinks from a challenge and never settles for the old way of teaching. He is always looking for new and innovative curriculum to challenge himself and bring out the best in his students. Teachers like Donald Johnson represent the key to America's future. As our children face the challenges of the 21st century, it is dedicated educators like Mr. Johnson who accept the challenge of turning the young people of today into the leaders of tomorrow. Mr. President, I hope that you and the rest of our Senate colleagues will join me in congratulating one of America's outstanding educators.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, at midnight last night, President Clinton threw in the towel, so to speak, and bailed out on his constitutional responsibility to keep the Federal Government in operation. By vetoing legislation to extend the Federal Government's borrowing ability, and by vetoing a continuing resolution that would have kept the Federal Government funded, President Clinton set the engine on full throttle and barreled the U.S. Government into the train wreck we have been hearing so much about over the last several months. And it is all because he is unwilling to follow through on a promise to balance the budget. Despite calls from the American taxpayers for a little leadership from the Nation's Chief Executive. Did you know that every day, the Washington Times prints a little chart illustrating exactly how much this Government owes its creditors? This morning's paper, for example, shows the U.S. Government approximately $4.984 trillion in debt. In just one 2-day period recently, the national debt increased more than $2.2 billion--enough, estimated the Times, to buy a Big Mac, medium french fries, and medium-sized drink for every person in the entire United States and Mexico. Just the interest alone on a debt that massive is accumulating at the rate of $4 million an hour. If our national debt were shared equally among all Americans, each of us would owe more than $19,000. Every child born today in the United States of America--and that is going to be about 8,200 children--comes into this world already saddled with more than $19,000 in debt. That is immoral, Mr. President. So the difference between Congress and the President--the difference in what we apparently see when we look at those staggering statistics-- is the difference between passion and politics. Congress is passionate about fulfilling our promise to balance the budget and end the legacy of debt we continue to build for the coming generations. We cannot imagine what it took to build up a national debt of nearly $5 trillion--that is a 5 followed by 12 zeroes--and we cannot imagine letting it go on for another day. That is passion. The President's guiding force, meanwhile, is politics. For him to shut down the Government is nothing more than a political move--an attempt to derail all our hard work at balancing the Federal budget merely to satisfy the radical liberal wing of his own party. Congress wants to move forward, while President Clinton wants to stop the people's agenda dead in its tracks. Harry Truman used to have a sign on his desk that read: ``The Buck Stops Here.'' Well, President Clinton ought to have a sign on his that says ``The Revolution Stops Here.'' For him, leadership is not about fulfilling promises or making change, or principled decisionmaking. It is all about politics. Mr. President, I came to the floor last Tuesday to speak about the budget and the President's unwillingness to work with us, in good faith, toward the goals shared by a majority of all Americans. Immediately afterward, one of my good colleagues from across the aisle responded with his own thoughts about the budget debate, and he chided me for making the Senate what he called ``a political arena.'' All I can say is that it is nearly impossible to talk about this President without somehow mentioning politics. His public comments of the past week have been nothing but political rhetoric, and desperate rhetoric, at that. In his Saturday radio address, he asked listeners to: Imagine the Republican Congress as a banker, and the United States as family that has to go to the bank for a short-term loan, for a family emergency. The banker says to the family, ``I will give you the loan, but only if you will throw the grandparents and the kids out of the house first.'' Mr. President, my constituents in Minnesota and the rest of the American people asked for fundamental changes last November from their Government, not empty rhetoric. But President Clinton has made the decision not to climb aboard. Of course, that is his choice, and none of us is apparently going to change his mind. But hear this--Congress will not bow out of its responsibility to deliver to the people a budget that balances within 7 years, that draws the line at tax increases, and in fact cuts taxes for working-class Americans, that preserves and protects Medicare. The question of why the President of the United States of America is so vehemently opposed to a balanced budget that does not increase taxes that he would shut down the Federal Government and default on the Nation's financial obligations, can only be answered by the President himself. And the American people are waiting for an answer.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate a fellow Minnesotan, Jim Hautman of Plymouth, MN, on submitting the winning entry for the 1994-95 Federal Duck Stamp Design Competition. What is particularly impressive about the selection of Mr. Hautman's entry as the winner of this year's Federal duck stamp competition is that this is the second time he has won the contest, having also produced the winning entry in 1989. In fact, the Hautman family has a history of submitting winning entries into the competition. Brother Joe Hautman's entry won the competition in 1991, while brother Bob Hautman won a second place award in 1994. Each year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sponsors the duck stamp design competition to determine the final design of the following year's stamp. The artwork is judged by a panel of art, waterfowl, and stamp experts who must select the winning design from up to 1,000 entries. The contest is the only annual art competition sponsored by the Federal Government, with the winning entry released for sale to sportsmen and women and stamp collectors each June 30. The revenues generated by the sales of each year's winning entry are used by the Federal Government to buy or lease habitat lands for migratory waterfowl species. Since the Federal Duck Stamp Design Program was first initiated in 1934, Minnesota has produced nine winners of the annual competition, more than any other State. As this year's winner, Mr. Hautman not only continues this impressive tradition of competition winners from Minnesota, but also a tradition of producing winning entries within his own immediate family. For the Record I am pleased to submit yesterday's Washington Post article on the Hautman family's legendary success in the duck stamp contest. Mr. President, as a Senator representing a State which has a proud history of maintaining and providing waterfowl and wildlife habitat, I want to again congratulate Mr. Hautman on winning this prestigious contest for the second time and also recognize and laud the achievements of the Federal Duck Stamp Program in providing habitat for migratory waterfowl species. The article follows: [From The Washington Post, Nov. 7, 1995] Quackerjack Artists; For the Stamp Contest, the Hautman Brothers Have Their Ducks in a Row (By William Souder) Plymouth, Minn.--The ducks have pretty much taken over Bob Hautman's house. There are loaded decoy bags in the middle of the living room floor, and loose decoys--fat bluebills and graceful canvasbacks--are scattered about seemingly everywhere. Stuffed ducks, locked in perpetual flight, rest on shelves that are a few weeks between dustings. Out on the driveway a dun-painted duck boat sits on a trailer hooked up to Hautman's car, which is pointed toward the street for an easy pre-dawn exit. ``Fixing these guys up,'' Hautman says, turning over a freshly spray-painted bluebill decoy. He is tall and thin, dressed in jeans and a zippered camouflage sweat shirt. The decoy he is holding is a gamy smudge of black and light gray. ``I was out hunting today, and I thought they looked pretty beat up. I am going out again in the morning.'' For Hautman, 36, it is another autumn, another duck season, another chance at waterfowling immortality. He interrupts his hunting this week to come to Washington for the annual federal duck stamp competition--far and away the most prestigious honor in wildlife painting and surely one of the richest art prizes in the world. Hautman is one of 453 wildlife artists from around the country who submitted entries in September, and while many of the others will be too nervous to attend the judging today and tomorrow [see related article, Page E6], Hautman will be right there in the audience waiting to see if his 7-by-10-inch painting will become next year's stamp. And why not? After all, he finished second in last year's contest and came in fourth the three years prior to that. Plus, he is a Hautman--a member of America's ruling duck stamp dynasty--and he is due. The current $15 duck stamp--the one riding around on the backs of more than 1 million hunting licenses--was engraved from a painting of a pair of mallards submitted last year by Hautman's younger brother Jim. That made two wins for Jim, who at the age of 25 had become the youngest winner ever with a painting of black-bellied whistling ducks that appeared on the 1990 stamp. Jim got married earlier this year and moved out of the house on the hill in Plymouth, but he still has studio space there in a cluttered bedroom down the hall from Bob's. Because artists cannot enter the contest for 3 years after a win, Bob will not be competing against Jim this week. But then there is Joe, another Hautman brother, who is back in the hunt this year after winning in 1992 with a spectacled eider. [[Page S 16833]] Joe, 39, lives in Jackson, N.J., and has a PhD in physics. He gave up science after doing postdoctoral research at the University of Pennsylvania so he could become a full-time wildlife artist, too. Jim and Joe are the only brothers ever to win the federal competition. Joe's submission this year is a Barrow's goldeneye, one of the four ducks the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has solicited for the 1996 stamp. Bob, the shyest of the three brothers and the one most anxious about the competition, would not say which bird he painted for the contest. If Joe were to win again, Bob would at least get a chance every other wildlife artist in the country covets, the chance to compete next year without going up against a Hautman. ``We do get calls every year from artists wanting to know if the Hautmans are going to be in the contest,'' says Terry Bell, special events coordinator for the Federal Duck Stamp Program. ``They are all a little intimidated.'' The Duck Market Duck stamp painting is a high-stakes subspecies of wildlife art--itself a genre held in low regard by the fine-art world but adored by millions of sportsmen and collectors. The stamp paintings are intensely realistic--anatomical correctness is required of every entry--but the rewards of winning a stamp competition are decidedly unreal. Officially, the Federal Duck Stamp Program offers the winner only a sheet of stamps and a handshake from the secretary of the interior. But there is a thriving private-sector market for limited-edition prints of the winning painting. That market peaked in the mid-1980s, when winners of the federal competition could count on making a minimum of $1 million in fees and royalties from their prints, not to mention the overnight increase in the value of their other works. For a variety of reasons--including large print runs that glutted the market, careless investments by speculators, and a continuing decline in the number of duck hunters--the payoff for winning the federal contest is not what it used to be, though it remains enormous. This year's winner can expect to earn somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million. ``When you win, the phone does not stop ringing for days,'' says David Maass, another Minnesota artist who's won the federal competition. ``This is the Olympics of wildlife art,'' says Robert Lesino, chief of the Federal Duck Stamp Program. ``No other event in the life of an artist can launch a career like this can. When you win the federal duck stamp, everything changes.'' Shooting and Sketching ``I never really thought the boys showed that much artistic talent,'' says Elaine Hautman of her sons. ``They always had their crayons, and they could always draw nicely. I guess other people thought that was unusual, but to us it was just sort of normal.'' Hautman, who worked in the 1940s as a commercial artist in Minneapolis and who remains a sharp-eyed critic of her sons' work, says they got their love of the outdoors from her late husband, Tom, who took them hunting and taught them how to look at game in its natural environment. ``I think by the time they could talk they could already tell one bird from another,'' she says. Joe Hautman says that he, Jim and Bob have never thought of themselves as being unique. ``It seems sort of natural to us,'' he says. ``There are seven kids in the family, so it is not like we are all into this. The three of us have always done art, and I do not think we tend to see ourselves in the same way others see us. I guess it is like the way people in the same family sometimes do not think they look like each other when in fact they do. ``The three of us just got back from a long hunting trip in Minnesota and Manitoba, and in two weeks we did not talk about art at all.'' It is one thing to be a genetically predisposed wildlife artist. It is another thing altogether to set out purposefully to win duck stamp competitions. Besides the federal stamps they've illustrated, the brothers Hautman have collectively won 15 State duck or pheasant stamp competitions, and Jim has won the Australian national contest. No wonder other artists are spooked. The Hautmans are not prolific--none of them produces more than a dozen paintings a year, and they publish only a fraction of their output for collectors--but when a bird flies off one of their easels there's a very good chance it will land on a hunting stamp. Everyone into duck art recognizes that the Hautmans share an uncommon natural talent, just as they recognize the brothers' distinctive style--the strong lighting, the stark contrasts so well suited to the engraving process, the meticulous anatomical perfection. But what seems to have really separated them from other artists is their single- mindedness. ``More than any other wildlife artists I know, they are students of duck stamp design,'' says Frank J. Sisser, editor and publisher of U.S. Art magazine in Minneapolis and one of the five judges for the 1992 competition. ``They study what's been successful. And they make no bones about painting primarily for stamp competitions. They are not as distracted by other projects as many artists are. ``But they are also brothers and best friends who serve as each other's harshest critics. If they can survive having their paintings inspected by one another, they are going to have a very good chance at winning.'' The Hautmans have traveled to Kodiak Island to observe and shoot species found only near the Bering Sea. They have hunted snow geese and the ubiquitous mallard in the marshes of Manitoba, Canada. They always hunt in Minnesota, and Bob says he wouldn't mind getting down to Texas sometime to look for the little-seen mottled duck, a brown-on-brown bird similar in appearance to a hen mallard and one of the four North American ducks that has never been on the Federal stamp. When the brothers failed to bag a rare spectacled eider in Alaska a few years ago, Joe's research for his winning painting took him to the Philadelphia Zoo, which had a live hen, and to a natural history museum up in Ottawa, which had a collection of dead eiders that had been shot by Eskimos early in this century. ``I thought they would be mounted,'' says Joe, ``but they were just in drawers, kind of laid out flat. The museum let me examine them, and I made a lot of photographs and sketches.'' Whenever they can, the Hautmans shoot their own specimens and have them mounted, to study and work from over time. ``You can bend them into whatever pose you want if you work on them when they are still wet from the taxidermist,'' says Jim. Of course, they do not always have to go so far to find them, either. Minnesota lies between two major migratory routes--the Mississippi Flyway on the east side of the State and the Central Flyway on the west. Every fall a great southward movement of birds that breed all the way up to the Arctic Circle sweeps down across Minnesota--thousands of geese and ducks and swans in an immense, colorful profusion. Minnesota is duck country, and, in a way, the capital of American duck culture. Nine Minnesotans, more than from any other State, have won the Federal duck stamp competition, and several of them--including Jim Hautman, David Maass and the legendary Les Kouba--have won twice. The process is meticulous. Bob Hautman says finding the right image involves many false starts and dead ends as he makes preliminary sketches. ``I am trying to find an effect that will make the painting alive as opposed to lifelike,'' he says. ``A photograph looks realistic, but frozen. But with a painting, when you look at it you should see something that looks living. ``Surprisingly, the background is often the hardest part. Sometimes it takes weeks. Sometimes it takes months.'' Robert Lesino thinks the Hautmans' methodical approach is not typical of many wildlife artists. ``A lot of the guys who enter the stamp competition wait until the last minute and then hurry the painting to get it in on time,'' Lesino says. ``The Hautmans start a year ahead of time. They just put in more effort than other people do.'' ``I start thinking about the next painting right after the contest,'' says Jim. ``I am a slow painter. It takes me a long time.'' The Paradox The results of those long labors are breathtakingly beautiful to duck aficionados and more or less a complete mystery to everyone else. Despite the insistent realism, duck art is variable in its effect. Some stamp images die in front of your eyes--they're accurate but cataleptic. Others are quite arresting. Dan Smith, another Minnesota painter, won the Federal contest in 1988 with a moody, suggestive image of a lone snow goose winging along a foggy lake shore at dawn. The painting was a marvel of depth and technical wizardry. Smith said at the time that painting a snow goose--which is basically a white oval with wings--was ``like trying to paint an egg.'' To non-hunters, duck art is contradictory all the way around--an art with no aesthetic. Why shoot a duck so you can paint it to raise money for habitat for more ducks to shoot? The answer, for painters from John James Audubon to the Hautman brothers, is ineffable, but the fundamental assumption--that hunting is heartless and hunters are unfeeling--is problematic. The truth is that hunters are hopeless sentimentalists, filled with nostalgic longing for days spent in frigid sloughs under steely skies. They are touched to the core by images of birds on the wing in blustery weather. ``Some people just cannot relate to duck hunting or to duck hunters,'' says Bob Hautman. ``I understand that. Sometimes when you are out there in a boat in a swamp wringing a duck's neck, I guess you might think to yourself that it is kind of a tough sport. But it is where I start. Wildlife artists are generally hunters first.'' Randy Eggenberger, president of Wild Wings, a leading wildlife art publisher based in Lake City, Minn., which has handled the Hautmans' work for 10 years, thinks wildlife art is simply democratic art. ``These are paintings that appeal to the masses,'' he says. ``And that is what I think art should be about--creating something that Joe Blow can hang on his wall and enjoy.'' Jim Hautman says whatever it is about duck painting that people like cannot really be analyzed. ``I guess hunting is a paradox to many people,'' he says. ``And what I do is hard to explain. All I can say is that if I did not love ducks, I wouldn't hunt them.'' [[Page S 16834]] Duck Tale: Birth of a STAMP The Federal Duck Stamp Program was created by Congress in 1934 to raise revenue to purchase and manage waterfowl habitat within the National Wildlife Refuge System. The first stamps, which cost $1, were painted by artists commissioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Since 1949 the image engraved on the stamp, which now costs $15, has been chosen in an annual open competition. It is the only art competition officially sponsored by the Federal Government, and one of the longest-running and most successful conservation programs in the country. Ninety-eight percent of the revenue from duck stamp sales goes directly to purchase wetlands. Since its inception, the program has generated half a billion dollars in revenue and added more than 4 million acres of wetlands to the refuge system. Federal duck stamps are required on all duck hunting licenses in the United States, and hunters will purchase about 90 percent of roughly 1.5 million stamps that will be sold this year. The remainder are bought by conservationists and stamp collectors. This year's competition opened yesterday, in the auditorium at the Department of the Interior building at 18th and C streets NW, when all 453 entries went on display. Judging begins today, from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with an initial in-or-out elimination round that will winnow the entries down to 50 or so paintings. Tomorrow, judges will score the paintings, with announcement of a winner expected around noon. All sessions are free and open to the public. The identity of the five judges, who are picked from all over the country each year, is kept secret before the competition. However, program chief Robert Lesino confirms that one judge this year will be Jane Alexander, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. The Fish and Wildlife Service limits the competition in alternating years to those ducks that have never appeared on the Federal stamp--the so-called ``ugly ducks.'' This is an ugly duck year, with the black scoter, surf scoter, Barrow's goldeneye and mottled duck to choose from.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, if you had been in New Hampshire on Thursday, January 9, 1992, and had been near a television, you might have seen the premiere of a new political advertisement--the first, early ad of the presidential campaign for a candidate who was not yet a familiar face. The setting is an office. Piano music plays gently in the background, and the candidate speaks to the camera with an American flag as his backdrop. ``In the 80's,'' he begins, ``the rich got richer, the middle class declined, poverty exploded, politicians in Washington raised their pay and pointed fingers, but no one took responsibility.'' The candidate promises a tax cut for the middle class, even offers viewers a copy of his ``Plan for America's Future'' if they call the number on their television screen. ``I hope you'll join us in this crusade for change,'' he says earnestly. Together we can put government back on the side of the forgotten middle class and restore the American dream. I'm Bill Clinton, and I believe you deserve more than 30- second ads or vague promises. Mr. President, Bill Clinton evoked the image of the forgotten middle class throughout his campaign for the White House, tantalizing the voters--while separating himself from the rest of his Democratic opponents--by promising he would cut taxes for working-class Americans. ``I am not in this thing to pander,'' he told Business Week in a June 1992 interview. The way I came to the across-the-board, middle-class tax cut didn't have a relationship to the polls. . . . I came back to the middle-class tax cut as a down payment on fairness. As that ``down payment on fairness'' took shape, Bill Clinton reached out to the overtaxed middle class by focusing his tax cut plan on families, advocating ideas that seemed more in line with the Republican vision than the Democrat policies of the past. ``It is very much harder to raise a child for a middle-class family today than it was 40 years ago,'' said candidate Clinton. ``Our country used to take the position that the way to build strong families was to enable the working people to have enough money to raise their families.'' ``We're still getting a disproportionate amount of taxes from the middle class,'' he emphasized. During the Presidential campaign, candidate Clinton promised to reduce the taxes paid by families and shield them from future tax increases. ``Virtually every industrialized nation recognizes the importance of strong families in its tax code; we should too,'' he wrote in ``Putting People First,'' his campaign's economic outline for the country. ``We will lower the tax burden on middle-class Americans.'' Mr. Clinton's plan began to take shape with a focus on tax relief for families with children. ``The main portion of the middle-class tax cut for me in its present form is the children's tax credit,'' he said back in 1992. He promised that he would cut taxes for average, middle-class families by 10 percent, giving them a choice between a phased-in, $800 per-child tax credit or a ``significant reduction in their income tax rate.'' Those election-year promises helped turn candidate Bill Clinton into President Bill Clinton when frustrated Americans went to the polls that November. But like so many promises made in the political heat of an election year, Mr. Clinton's tax-cut intentions of 1992 melted like summer snow in 1993. By then, Republicans in Congress were rallying around the $500 per- child tax credit I had authored as a Member of the House, making it the centerpiece of our budget alternatives in both the House and Senate. But the Democrats, led by the President, pushed through a package of tax hikes on the middle class--a historic tax increase that affected every segment of American society. Promises made, promises broken. Mr. President, in 1995, this Congress has not forgotten our promise to the middle class. We have passed a budget that recognizes, just as President Clinton did in 1992, that working-class Americans have paid more than their fair share of taxes over the last 40 years. Families in 1950 sent just $1 of every $50 they earned to Washington, but families today are turning over $1 out of every $4. That is money they could have spent for a child's education, health insurance, groceries for an elderly parent, or something as simple as birthday presents and Christmas gifts. But instead, they are handing it over to the Washington bureaucrats, who spend it for them--often recklessly--in ways that often have no benefit at all to the folks who foot the Government's bills. For more than 40 years, the only economic and fiscal discipline exercised by Congress has come at the expense of the American taxpayers. The budget plan we will soon be sending to the President is based on our deeply held belief that the weekly paycheck is not the Government's money--that families can spend their own money better than a Government that demands those dollars to spend on their behalf. We are certain that 250 million Americans, empowered to make their own spending decisions, will make better choices than Congress and the President could ever make for them. With our budget, Congress is dedicating $245 billion to tax relief, the vast majority of which will go to working-class American families through the $500-per-child tax credit. The child tax credit means Minnesota families would get to keep $477 million of their own dollars every year, to spend wherever they needed help the most. The $500-per-child tax credit would return $150 million annually to families in President Clinton's own State of Arkansas. And it would completely erase the tax liability for 38,411 Arkansas residents. Well, it has been nearly 4 years since that first campaign commercial in New Hampshire promised tax relief for the beleaguered middle class. An election is on the horizon, and once again, like the swallows returning to Capistrano, candidate Clinton is talking about cutting taxes. He laid out the framework in his most recent State of the Union address. He said: ``I have proposed the middle-class bill of rights * * * It will give needed tax relief and raise incomes in both the short run and the long run, in a way that benefits all of us.'' We say ``welcome back aboard'' to the President. We need President Clinton with us as the budget process continues. He has a critical role as we move forward. We cannot enact our groundbreaking legislation without his signature. We cannot carry out the people's agenda without the people's President behind us. And President Clinton needs us, too. So we have prepared a budget that meets the objectives outlined at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Yes, Congress and the President may disagree about some of the specifics, but not our goals. The budget must balance. It must protect and preserve Medicare. It must restore hope to those who have been trapped in the welfare system. And it must cut taxes for the middle-class, with the same child tax credit President Clinton promised in 1992, and again this year. President Clinton considered family tax relief such a fundamental concept that he outlined it as a priority in that very first television ad of his Presidential campaign. ``Together we can put government back on the side of the [[Page S 16717]] forgotten middle class and restore the American dream,'' he told New Hampshire television viewers. The time for vague promises is long past. If he still believes in the words he delivered with such conviction in 1992--and in the child tax credit that will turn those words into action--then the President must sign the budget bill we send him in 1995. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I was very pleased to learn of the release today of two American prisoners in Vietnam. They are Mr. Nguyen Tan Tri and Mr. Tran Quang Liem. Both Mr. Tri and Mr. Liem will arrive in the United States today. The American citizens were detained 2 years ago, along with Steven Young, a constituent of mine and a well-known promoter of democracy in Vietnam. The three Americans were in Vietnam organizing a conference on democracy with Vietnamese activists. Unfortunately, the right to free speech is not yet recognized in Vietnam, and the three Americans were detained without charge. Steve Young was released within a few days, but Tri and Liem languished in poor health in a Vietnamese prison for nearly 2 years before they were charged, tried, and convicted of treason in mid-August. Sentences of 7 years for Tri and 4 years for Liem were then issued. As a member of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Eastern Asia and Pacific Affairs, I made this matter a top priority. On September 19, I passed Senate Resolution 174, which was cosponsored by my colleagues Mr. Dole, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Thomas. The resolution called for U.S. Government intervention at the highest levels to secure freedom for these Americans. At the time it did not appear that Secretary-level contact had been made in this matter, something that I believed was essential after the normalization with Vietnam. Suitable contacts were subsequently made, allowing us to communicate how important the release of these two Americans was to our Government and to the relationship between our two countries. On October 12, I met with family members of Mr. Tri and Mr. Liem, who had traveled to Washington from Texas and California to urge the Government to give this matter the same priority that it gave to the release of Harry Wu. The families were concerned about the health of the American prisoners, as well as the poor prison conditions to which they were subjected. They were informed by the State Department officials that release had become a top priority for the administration. Mr. President, shortly after this meeting, it appeared that the Vietnamese were becoming more interested in resolving this matter. The rumors out of Vietnam were rampant. Several times we heard that there would be a retrial. We heard that there would be a release about the same time of President Le's visit to the United States to attend the U.N. anniversary celebration. We then heard the retrial would [[Page S 16724]] occur the weekend of October 28, followed by conviction and expulsion from the country. Finally, a commitment was made that the release would occur this past weekend in Vietnam. While all of this goes to show that freedom of speech and due process are still scarce in Vietnam, I am pleased that normalization has apparently given us more tools to pursue issues of dispute with the Vietnamese Government. The two Americans have now been released, but many political prisoners, whose only crime has been to address issues of religious and political freedom, remain locked away in Vietnamese prisons. I am encouraged as well that the Vietnamese have been more forthcoming with the release of information about MIA's and POW's after normalization. We must continue our efforts with Vietnam to pursue a full accounting, as my resolution also has requested. Again, I applaud the personal intervention of Secretary Warren Christopher and Secretary Lord on this important matter, and I also look forward to working with them to pursue our mutual goals now that we have normalized our relationships with Vietnam. To Mr. Tri and to Mr. Liem I say, Welcome home. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on the heels of welfare and lobby reform, Congress is just beginning to address the issue of welfare for lobbyists. Both Houses of Congress have passed legislation aimed at curbing the abusive practice of forcing taxpayers to subsidize lobbying activity. Even so, we are coming dangerously close to returning to business as usual in Washington. The Treasury-Postal appropriations conferees have been debating the welfare for lobbyists issue for weeks. The only agreement so far has been an agreement to disagree. Mr. President, each year, the American taxpayers give more than $39 billion--that is ``billion,'' with a ``B''--to organizations which turn around and use those dollars to lobby Congress for more taxpayer dollars. Over the past several months, we have seen those 39 billion tax dollars hard at work here in Washington. During this summer's Medicare debate, one of the most vocal contributors to the Medi-Scare campaign of misinformation was AARP, an organization which received more than 70 million taxpayer dollars during a 1-year period between July 1993 and June 1994--70 million taxpayer dollars. Here are just a few other examples of American's hard-earned tax dollars at work: $250,000 went to the Child Welfare League of America, which turned around and launched a vicious ad campaign aimed at increasing welfare spending; its ad against the Contract With America's welfare reform proposal screamed, ``More children will be [[Page S 16638]] killed. More children will be raped;'' another $1 million went to the American Nurses Association, which proudly announces their mission to ``lobby Congress and regulatory agencies on health care issues;'' $150,000 went to AFSCME, which denounced the recent welfare plan, claiming it ``will drive more families into poverty and turn its back on hard-working Americans who fall on hard times;'' $2 million went to the AFL-CIO, which, over the Memorial Day congressional recess, used that $2 million to pressure Members of Congress on labor issues. The union's ``Stand Up'' campaign included radio ads and direct mail. Now, Mr. President, I recognize that not all of the tax dollars used to subsidize these groups goes directly to political advocacy. And not all of these dollars go to organizations with a political agenda--many are directed to worthwhile charities that are doing the right thing in their communities. But many of these organizations are really lobbying and political front groups that are taking taxpayer dollars and spending them on political activities. All Americans are guaranteed the first amendment right to speak out, but they do not have the right to speak out at taxpayer's expense. Thomas Jefferson made this point nearly two centuries ago when he said, ``To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'' Not only are we compelling taxpayers to pay for the propagation of ideas they do not believe in, we are doing it behind their back, and we are adding to the Nation's enormous deficit to do it. Mr. President, Americans work too hard for their money to see it spent for them promoting political causes they oppose. And they work too hard for their money to give it to lobbyists in the form of welfare. Now the evidence that this welfare for lobbyists really does exist was never more obvious than earlier this year, during the lobbying reform debate. When we came close to passing a strong provision in Treasury-Postal appropriations limiting taxpayer-financed lobbying--the compromise provision reached between Senator Simpson and our colleague in the House, Representative Istook--our offices came under siege from groups lobbying to protect their special interest. Now, this is not going to effect the efforts of many major groups such as the American Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the American Cancer Society, the United Way, and the hundreds of other organizations which still manage to lobby effectively without financial assistance from the taxpayers will attest. Mr. President, all the Simpson-Istook compromise does is require Federal grantees to act like true charities. It is important to understand that there is not an absolute prohibition on lobbying. The Simpson-Istook compromise recognizes that there are gray lines between activities such as providing information to Congress, and actually lobbying Congress. For this reason, no organization will be capped at less than $25,000 and many organizations will still be able to spend up to $1 million for their lobbying activities here in Washington. Yet even with these generous limits, opponents have cranked up a propaganda machine unequaled in any debate this year. They have even formed the so-called Let America Speak Coalition, whose members have been quoted as saying that, ``If Istook passes, nonprofits will no longer draft [regulations]. * * *'' Mr. President, why are nonprofits that receive taxpayer funding writing Federal regulations in the first place? These groups go even further by calling this legislation a gag rule that is unfair and un-American. But I would suggest to them that free speech is not free at all if Uncle Sam's taxpayers are footing the bill for it. The amount of disinformation being spread by these groups has been astounding. We have all heard how those who rely on Government assistance such as students, farmers, and welfare recipients will supposedly lose their right to lobby. The House language specifically exempts this type of Government assistance--yet the untruths continue. The Senate needs to pass strict reforms that will require full disclosure of all Federal money spent by grantees, reforms that will truly eliminate all Federal funding of political advocacy. We also need to stop the political games in which a grantee supports an affiliate who does the lobbying for them. And there needs to be tough penalties for organizations that knowingly violate the rules. Mr. President, I have no desire to limit the ability of people to exercise their right to free speech--as long as its with their own resources and their own money. But there is no place for taxpayer- subsidized political advocacy in a truly free society. The hard-earned tax dollars that we ask working Americans to send to Washington should be reserved for those who truly need them, and not to provide welfare for these lobbying groups. I urge my colleagues to end the tyranny Thomas Jefferson warned against and support real reform that will put money in the pockets of taxpayers and keep those taxpayer dollars basically out of the pockets of lobbyists. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, my freshman colleagues and I have come to the floor again this morning to talk about our plan to balance the Federal budget and what that balanced budget will mean to this generation and, more importantly, or as importantly, to the generations to follow. But no statement that we make today could speak more eloquently than a letter I received from a young Minnesotan in Duluth, MN. He writes to me and urges me: I urge you, Mr. Grams, to take a stand for eliminating this overwhelming national debt. It is a cancer that is growing and growing, and something needs to be done soon, if not for your generation's sake, for mine. For the first time in a quarter of a century, Congress is standing up for the coming generations, and we are standing up to the big spenders who have long dominated the decisionmaking here on Capitol Hill. We have finally said, ``Enough is enough--it is time to return to reality, it is time to stop the wasteful spending, and it is time to balance the Federal budget,'' and that is what we have done with our revolutionary budget plan that eliminates the deficit by the year 2002 without raising taxes and without drastically slashing Government spending. Ask Minnesotans if they think the Federal Government ought to balance its budget, and most people would say, ``Well, yes, of course,'' after all, Minnesota families have to balance their own budgets every month, altering their spending habits to keep pace with the paychecks coming in and the bills that are going out. The corner grocer, the video store owner, and every other job provider has to do the same thing. It is the responsible thing to do, and at a time when the taxpayers are demanding accountability in Washington, a responsible Congress is expected to meet those same standards that we ourselves have to meet. Besides the obvious benefits that come with prudent financial management, balancing the Federal budget offers tremendous economic benefits for all Americans--and my friend from Wyoming just went a through a list--through lower unemployment, lower interest rates, and a higher standard of living. The story of the credit-hungry power shopper really illustrates why. With a new job and a pretty good salary to go along with it, he applies for and receives his first credit card. An incredible shopping spree follows, and then another and another, and it does not take long before he reached his credit limit. Now he has three choices: Stop spending so recklessly; ask for more credit; or go to your boss and ask for a raise. The spending has become addictive and he is not about to stop. He already spent his last raise, so he phones the credit company and asks for additional credit. They are happy, of course, to oblige and he is off on another spending spree. This pattern continues for several years until he has increased his credit line to the point now where his monthly payments are barely keeping up with the interest that he owes on his tremendous debt. He has spent every raise in advance without a second thought, yet refuses to stop spending. He knows what he is doing is wrong and, in the back of his mind, he understands that he cannot keep doing this forever, after all, sooner or later the credit card company is going to come after him for their money, and that is the very position that our Federal Government finds itself in. For four decades, the Government has been that uncontrollable shopper, raising taxes, spending hundreds of billions of dollars more than it takes in and, in the process, it has dug this Nation into a $5 trillion debt. Whenever it [[Page S 16570]] reached the credit limit, Congress would vote to increase it. Whenever it needed to ask for a ``raise,'' it would vote to increase taxes on middle-class families. But now the Federal Government is in the very same position as that over-eager shopper. We have now reached the point where we are only paying enough on our national credit card, so to speak, to cover the interest, let alone trying to make any dent at all on the principle. In fact, this year for the first time, we will pay as much in interest on the debt as we will on national defense. Let us be clear, the call to raise the debt ceiling is so that this Government can go out and borrow another $25 billion so it can just make an interest payment. Let me say that over again. The reason the debt ceiling is going to have to be raised is so this Government can go out and borrow $25 billion to meet an interest obligation. That would be like you or me going to the bank and borrowing money so we could come home and make an interest payment on our credit cards. Usually when we go to the bank to borrow some money, we do it in order to purchase something--a home, a car, or other goods--and we do get something in return and then we plan to make the payments, both principle and interest, out of income that we have. But we have a Government that is now so out of whack that we now are asking the taxpayers to let us borrow more money so we can just pay the interest. In other words, it is like you taking your Visa card and paying off your MasterCard. Because the Government is borrowing so much money, the dollars that would otherwise be available to the job providers, to the home buyers are no longer there. They have been sucked up by this Government. Without those investment dollars that could go to the private sector that are now going to the Federal Government, companies have been forced to put their long-term investments, such as new facilities and new equipment, on hold, and those are the type of investments that create the jobs that we need. Those are the investment opportunities currently being undermined by the Government. That has been especially hard on the economy, because when American businesses are not making long-term investments or cannot find the money to do it, the jobs are not being created, productivity is slipping and incomes do not grow. Balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit will free up those valuable dollars for investment allowing businesses to create new and higher paying jobs, by some estimates as many as 6.1 million new jobs by the early part of the 21st century. Under a balanced budget, interest rates will decline by up to 2 percent, making loans for education, automobiles or startup businesses more affordable. For home buyers, a 2-percent drop in the interest rate would drop mortgage rates on average $100 a month. Those lower interest rates could boost a household's annual income by an additional $1,000 a year by the year 2002 and raise a family's standard of living to go along with it. Mr. President, I was listening to the distinguished junior Senator from North Dakota while he was speaking on the floor one day earlier this year. I have to thank him for introducing me to a very interesting book. It is a children's book, and it is something I think my grandchildren are going to enjoy, but its central message certainly has a special meaning for here in Washington as well. The book referred to is called The Berenstain Bears Get the Gimmies. The plot resolves around the little bear cubs in the family during a trip to the mall. It seems they have been infected with the ``gimmies''--gimmie this, gimmie that, gimmie the other thing. The cubs were asking for everything in sight on this shopping spree, never giving a thought to the price tag, and it was driving the parents crazy. Well, for 40 years, the Federal Government has been infected with the gimmies, as well. Every pork project it wanted to dole out, every new social program it wanted to bankroll, it just said, gimmie. The Government got what it wanted because the liberal Democrats had the votes to take the money, and it always gave away the bill to the taxpayers. Well, this Congress is finally putting a stop to the gimmies because it is the only way we will ever begin to restore fiscal sanity. Along with cutting taxes for working-class Minnesotans, balancing the budget by finally getting spending under control is the most important statement this Congress can make to the American people that we have heard their calls for reform. Balancing the budget demands patience, however, because the greatest benefits from eliminating the deficit will not be realized tomorrow--it is not a short-term political fix--but rather 5 or 10 years from now, for our children and grandchildren's future. Mr. President, it is our moral responsibility to free the coming generations--our children and grandchildren--from the burdens of paying decades of extra interest payments because of this generation's extravagant spending. We cannot continue to spend our children's money. We have made a lot of promises, but are we really committed to fulfilling that tremendous responsibility? Does this Congress have the will, the determination, to prove that there is a better way out there to govern than we have seen over the past 40 years? Our balanced budget legislation should be proof enough that this Congress is prepared to meet that challenge. This is not the easy way out. The easy way out has always been the quick fix, going to the taxpayers and raising taxes, year after year, time after time. That has always been the easy fix, the compassionate fix, to give more money away that we do not have. But when we start picking our children's pockets, I think it is time we face our problems squarely in the eye and take the necessary steps to improve it. Again, this is not a short- term fix. We are not going to realize a lot of the benefits or see it as early as tomorrow, but if we do not, we are going to see the tragedy in our children and grandchildren's faces 5, 10 years from now, when they look back and ask why we did this to them. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I want to commend the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, for his leadership on this issue and ask unanimous consent to have my name added as a cosponsor to the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. As a longtime proponent of an all-out repeal of the earnings limit, I am pleased the Senate is taking action on eliminating the additional burden President Clinton placed upon our seniors in his 1993 tax bill. The current Social Security earnings test penalizes senior citizens by reducing their benefits if they continue working beyond retirement age and earn over $11,160 per year. For every $3 earned above that, they are forced to send $1 back to the Federal Government. That is unfair. While repeated attempts have been made to repeal this seniors' penalty, or to at least substantially raise the earnings limit so that senior citizens can continue to contribute to society, the Clinton administration and the leaders of the previous Congress prevented any measures from passing. Today, we have an opportunity to prove that things have changed, and the Senate can do that by passing S. 1372 and providing some overdue tax relief to our seniors. I wanted to share with my colleagues some of the letters I have received from Minnesota seniors on this issue. One constituent of Pierz, MN, writes: I cannot afford to start drawing my Social Security because of the earnings limit penalty. . . . If allowable earnings were increased to $30,000 as the Republican plan proposes, consider all the additional Social Security taxes that would be collected. Also consider all the additional income taxes that would be collected by the federal and state governments. We, as Seniors on this issue, need YOUR HELP. A senior citizen from Eden Prairie shared a copy of a letter he sent to one of my colleagues. ``I wrote in 1993 regarding my concern over Social Security income being taxed,'' said the original letter. ``Not only was 50 percent of it then being taxed . . . but the Clinton budget plan increased the amount subjected to tax to 85%.'' The response this Senator received from my colleague was that he supported President Clinton's 1993 tax plan because it was ``fair.'' Madam President, I stand before you today because Clinton's assault on this Nation's senior citizens in 1993 was not fair. It is blatant discrimination against 700,000 older Americans. Furthermore, it discourages seniors from working, robbing businesses of skilled and experienced workers. Today, we have an opportunity to restore fairness, and to deliver on the promise we made to seniors. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I want to thank Senator Thomas, my good friend from Wyoming, for setting aside this time on the floor today for my freshmen colleagues and I to share our perspective on the Second American Revolution. There may be 11 freshmen new to the Senate this year, but we speak with a single voice when we talk about the mandate handed to us by the voters last November. Beginning last Wednesday morning and continuing for 20 hours, this Senate undertook a historic debate. For 20 hours, as we outlined the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act, we had the opportunity to outline for the American people a new vision for this country. Our vision is about standing up for taxpayers and their families. It is about reining in the big government that has inserted itself more and more deeply into their lives over the last 40 years. Our vision--this new approach to governing--begins with balancing the budget, preserving Medicare, redefining welfare, and letting the people keep more of their own money, through our $245 billion package of tax relief. Forty years of backroom wheeling and dealing by my colleagues across the aisle have dealt the American people nothing but a string of losing hands. The big spenders may have had a long run, but they never played by the rules. Instead of using their own money, they demanded--over and over again--that the taxpayers be the ones to ante up. With this Congress, however, it is a whole different game. We are no longer going to let the Government gamble away the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. In fact, we are going to keep those dollars out of the Government's hands in the first place. As you know, the centerpiece of our tax relief package is the $500- per-child tax credit, and I am proud that my colleagues stood with me to ensure that this desperately needed provision remains at the heart of our reconciliation bill. The $500-per-child tax credit will return $23 billion nationwide every year to working-class families, and those families have been vocal in sharing their thoughts on what kind of difference the child tax credit would make in their lives. Since I began working on the $500-per-child tax credit 3 years ago, as a Member of the U.S. House, I have been receiving letters urging Congress to follow through on our promise of middle-class tax relief. The letters have come from Minnesotans and from concerned Americans across this country, as well. I hope they do not mind if I share parts of their letters with my colleagues. Just a few: From Alabama, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $354 million annually, I received this note on the very same day we began debating the reconciliation legislation. The letter said: Please continue your work toward Medicare reform, a balanced budget over 7 years, and tax cuts. The people of this country are with you and waiting for this to happen. From California, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $2.6 billion annually: Our families desperately need tax relief, and our government needs to stop spending so wastefully. Another letter, signed a ``California Democrat,'' read in part: Thank you for your support of the family tax credit. As a parent of three, I know parents need the help. From Florida, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $973 million annually: Thanks for your efforts this past year in supporting tax relief for families! From Georgia, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $570 million annually: I am writing to thank you for proposing the budget plan that would cut federal spending more than President Clinton's, and for supporting tax relief for families. We can use all the help we get! From Illinois, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $1.1 billion every year: We are a one-paycheck family struggling to keep our heads above water. Two of our children are in a private school. The burden of paying for the public and private systems is great for us. Nonetheless, we must do what we know to be best for our children. It is encouraging to know there are members of the government who understand our struggle and are working on our behalf. From Minnesota's neighbor to the south, Iowa, where the $500-per- child tax credit would return $326 million annually: Thank you for supporting tax relief for families. Keep up the great job! From Kentucky, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $300 million annually: We realize you are fighting a tough battle and we fully support you on this issue. Keep fighting! From Michigan, home State of Senator Spencer Abraham, who has been one of the Senate's most vocal advocates on behalf of family tax relief, and where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $977 million annually: I want to commend and thank you for remembering and supporting the needs of families at tax time. Specifically, I want to thank you for spending the past year arguing for the $500 per-child tax credit. There aren't very many people in Washington who remember the pro-family community in our country--and even fewer people in Washington who will support the family. From Montana, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $46 million annually: We just wanted to take the time to say thank you for supporting tax relief for families. We appreciate your stand for us parents. From Nevada, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $95 million annually: Tax relief is really needed. We know--we have four children, one income. From New Hampshire, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $102 million annually: My reason for this letter is to thank each of you for supporting tax relief for families and to ask you to continue to do so until the tax relief becomes reality. From New York, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $1.4 billion annually: Thanks for your work to try to get President Clinton to make good on his promise to give tax relief to families. From Oklahoma, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $269 million annually: As a concerned citizen, a voter, and a taxpayer, I want to let you know there are a lot of us middle-income, family- heads-of-households who support you firmly. For the Presiding Officer in the chair, the Senator from Pennsylvania, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $1 billion annually: Please continue to keep the profamily community in mind. The family network, its strength, is what keeps this Nation strong. From South Carolina, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $320 million annually: Thank you for supporting tax relief for families. Keep up the good work! From Tennessee, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $446 million annually: Thank you for supporting tax relief for families. Also, please continue to work for the deficit and keep it a point of public awareness. From Texas, where the $500-per-child credit would return $1.6 billion annually: I am in favor of a tax cut for families. I believe that is one reason many people do not have more children these days--the Government taxes us so much, and tries to tell us how we should live and raise our children. I have three children of my own. From Washington State, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $537 million annually: Thank you for your work this term to get tax relief for families. It is such a hard fight. From Wisconsin, Minnesota's neighbor to the east, where the $500-per- child tax credit would return $505 million annually: Thanks for your efforts to give families tax cuts. And finally, Mr. President, the letters have poured in from my home [[Page S 16462]] State of Minnesota, where the $500-per-child tax credit would return $477 million annually, completely eliminating the tax liability for nearly 46,000 Minnesotans: This letter came from Northfield, MN: I'm encouraging you to support passage of a $500 per-child tax credit that goes to all tax-paying families with children under 18. Let's start strengthening society by supporting the backbone of the society--families! Then there is this letter from a family in Roseville, MN: A $500 Federal tax credit for each dependent is not a Federal hand-out, but would allow parents to keep more of the money that they make, and to use it to care for their own children. A $500 Federal tax credit for each dependent would unquestionably strengthen many families--especially middle- class and economically-disadvantaged families. And finally, a family in Minnetrista, MN, took the time to share these insights with me: As the mother of seven children with one income, I am especially interested in the $500 per child tax credit. We refuse to accept aid from Federal or State programs that we qualify for. We believe this country was built with hard work and sacrifice, not sympathy and handouts. We also believe that we can spend this money more effectively than the Government, who has only succeeded in creating a permanent, dependent welfare class with our money over the last 40 years. Let's get back to basics. Getting back to basics is what our budget plan is all about, Mr. President. That is why we are balancing the budget, protecting Medicare for the next generation, fixing a broken welfare system. That is why we are cutting taxes, too. And if these letters are any indication, the American people are solidly behind our back-to-basics approach. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I, too, would like to talk a little bit about the budget passed last week and the threatened veto. President Clinton reminds me lately of the weather vane we used to have atop the barn of my family's dairy farm. Ours happened to be shaped like a rooster, and we always knew which way the wind was blowing because that old rooster would spin around and around with the breeze. Like that old weather vane, the President is spending a lot of time on the roof these days, and he must get awful dizzy up there, testing the wind, shifting his position each time it changes. Last week, this chamber delivered on last November's mandate by the voters and passed a far-reaching, historic piece of legislation that turns this Government around by balancing the budget and cutting taxes. With the vote behind us, the budget reconciliation conference committee is now moving ahead with our plan, shaping a bill to send to the President. The newspaper columnists and the TV political panels have been busy reporting on just what President Clinton thinks about what we are doing. Or rather, on what the polls and his many political advisers tell the President he should be thinking. This is a President, after all, for whom ``taking a tough moral stand'' means finally admitting he raised taxes too much in 1993, and then recanting his story the very next day, blaming his confession on ``sleepiness.'' What the President is apparently hearing when it comes to the budget is that he ought to veto the reconciliation bill. Let me quote from the Washington Times of October 20: The White House is already preparing the post-veto campaign, mapping out travel schedules for Cabinet secretaries and culling poll results to determine the key issues the President will push. A top White House aide has even been promoted--a battlefield promotion, I guess--as ``assistant to the President.'' His new duties? To ``calculate the political impact of a veto.'' Mr. President, this Congress is tackling the serious issues that come with fundamental reform of the Government, issues like how to preserve the troubled Medicare program, how to save our kids and grandkids from having to carry the load of our debts and deficits, how to stop the welfare system's cycle of dependency, how to give working-class folks the tax relief they desperately need. While we are doing all of that, the White House huddles in its War Room calculating how many political points the President would score by trying to squash our efforts. It seems President Clinton's advisers have told him that he needs to veto the reconciliation bill to, ``draw policy differences with the Republicans.'' ``Without a veto,'' says a White House spokesman, ``you cannot draw the bright lines. And we are in a period where drawing that bright line is everything to the election.'' That election is still more than an entire year away. Yet at a time when this Nation is desperate for strong leadership from its Chief Executive, a distant election has become the guiding force of this Presidency. Mr. Clinton's advisers say he is going to veto our budget reconciliation bill. Well, it surely cannot be because his agenda is so fundamentally different from ours. We are calling for tax cuts, and the President says he wants tax cuts, as well. He supports the child tax credit and has hinted lately that he is agreeable to cutting the capital gains tax. Our budget plan preserves Medicare by slowing its growth and offering seniors choices--proposals strikingly similar to the Medicare plan touted by the President in his health care reform bill just 2 years ago. We are also easing back the growth of Government spending, and that is something for which President Clinton has been an advocate. After all, is not that what reinventing Government is all about? Now, after months of adamantly denying it could ever be accomplished, the President has admitted that balancing the budget in 7 years--not 10, or 9, or even 8, as he originally proposed--was a reasonable goal. Clearly, the President is moving closer toward us as this budget process continues. But still, he is going to wave his veto pen and just say ``no''--not because he believes in his heart that he must, but because the political winds suggest that he ought to. That is not leadership. I suggest to President Clinton that he resist playing politics and involve himself seriously in negotiations that will move this budget forward, on behalf of all Americans--and not stop it in its tracks to placate his political base. Mr. President, leadership does not mean having a finger sensitive enough to tell you which way the wind is blowing. And as any farmer knows, a flimsy weather vane that sits too long out in the elements is eventually going to wear out and need to be replaced.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to clarify the intent of the Energy and Water Development appropriations conference committee with regard to their support of the Biofuels Research and Development Program within the Department of Energy. Based upon contact my office has had with the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Appropriations, it was never the intent of the committee to exclude the other 48 States when it made note of projects in Hawaii and Vermont. Projects, including those in my own State of Minnesota, would be eligible to apply for available funds as would be the rest of the country. Furthermore, I understand that it was never the intent of the committee to discourage a continuation of the ongoing biomass electric program in all States parallel to the ongoing biomass fuels research and development program. While I have received word of the intent of this clarification, I want the record to reflect that I will be carefully watching the interpretation of this conference language by the Department of Energy. Should there be any misunderstanding, I will work with the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee to rectify this matter. I also seek unanimous consent to have the attached colloquy between the House Energy Subcommittee Chair and my Minnesota colleague, Representative Minge, on this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, first let me say that I agree with the Senator from Louisiana in wanting to make this tax cut refundable against the FICA or payroll tax, because I argued many months and many times that we should do this and expand the tax credit, because FICA is one of the most regressive. But this is not the way to do it. This is not the way to pit one group of hard-working, tax-paying families against another group of families that struggle every day to try and make ends meet, to provide for his or her family. Nearly 75 percent of the tax credits in the Republican plan go to families making under $75,000 a year, those hard-working families who have been asked to pay. This is the real crux of the argument: They have been asked to pay more of their income to Federal taxes every year, year after year. Our plan does target low-income families with increases in the EITC credit, already giving $24 billion this year, growing to like $30 billion, and in the next year, $40 billion plus. So those families are seeing an increase in their earned-income tax credit. They are getting tax relief or more money in their pockets. But who is forgotten? The families forgotten are those making between $30,000 and $75,000 a year. They are forgotten for the EITC program. They do not get the benefits here. Yet, they are remembered one day of the year--tax day--when they are asked to spend more and more of their money. I would like to work with the Senator from Louisiana to try and define ways to shrink the size of the Federal Government, to save additional moneys, to be able to expand even farther the tax credits, to give more persons tax relief. But let us not pit one group who are asked to pay and pay, and pay more of their income, as well as their FICA. Their FICA taxes are also being deducted. Let us give them credits and not pit one against the other. Let us not take money from the taxpayers. Let us work to shrink the size of the Government and give more Americans more of their money back in the form of tax credits. I would like to work with the Senator from Louisiana in doing that. But I do not support this, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. If the Senator will yield, the Senator from Louisiana said more children would be covered. Actually, under his bill, because he would limit the age at 15 and not 17, as in our proposal, 5 million children between the ages of 16 and 17, whose families' income fall below $75,000 a year, would not be denied this child tax credit. It would cover fewer children and not more. So I think the whole crux of this plan is to give tax relief for families.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was rejected.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, we have now reached the point where there is no further debate time allowed under the statute that governs this reconciliation bill, including time allotted to Senator Roth for the Finance Committee amendment. I am informed by the Democratic leader that they will have 30 or more amendments or points of order that they intend to offer and get votes on prior to passage. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining votes after the first vote tomorrow be limited to 7\1/2\ minutes and each Senator with an amendment is asked to submit a one-line description of their amendment to the chairman for him to read in explanation of the amendment, and that Senator Mikulski be permitted to offer a motion to instruct the conferees prior to the vote on final passage.

Mr. GRAMS. Shall I renew the request?

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, if there be no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 2 minutes each.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 9:15 a.m., Friday, October 27, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, the Senate then immediately resume consideration of the reconciliation bill.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume the bill at 9:15 a.m. tomorrow and will begin a very lengthy series of stacked rollcall votes in order to complete action on the budget reconciliation bill. All Members should be reminded that the stacked votes will be shortened; therefore, Members should expect to remain in or around the Chamber during tomorrow's session.