Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I will tell the Senator from Florida that it will be the majority leader's intention to attempt to shorten the votes from 15 minutes to 7\1/2\ minutes beginning tomorrow morning at 9:15.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, again, I would like to say that we will attempt to talk with the majority leader and Chairman Roth in the morning to try and accommodate the request of the Senator from Florida. We cannot do that any more this evening. Those efforts will be made in the morning.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, if this is a contest of volume and rhetoric and half truths, we are going to probably come in second best. I would like to try to concentrate on some common sense and some truth about what we are trying to debate here on the floor. We are really talking about a couple of major issues, and that is that a lot of the debate is whether we are going to put a Band-Aid over the Medicare Program and extend it for maybe 2 years into the future of solvency, as the Democrats have proposed, and then be back here in another year or two and debate this all over again, or we are going to look at some real reform. We are going to talk about extending this program to 2012 and into the next generation, to make sure that we secure, that we improve, and that we protect the Medicare system, not only for those who depend on it today, but for the next generation as well. If we do not begin real basic reform--that is, to reduce the rate of growth in this program, and we are not talking about cuts, we are talking about trying to put some common sense into this program and put out there a Medicare Program that not only provides good service but is one that we can afford. If we do not, the alternatives are just a couple. Either we can do as the Democrats have proposed, and that is extend the life of this program for just 2 years so we can come back here and debate this all over again after the next election. Or we can do nothing and we can let the trust fund go broke, as the trustees have told us it will do, in the year 2002. Or the other option would be that we can go back to the taxpayers with business as usual and say we need another $388 billion to keep this program status quo--business as usual. That is what the Democratic answer has been over the last 30 years. Seven times they have gone to the taxpayers and said, ``We need more money for this program,'' and raising taxes has always been the answer--never real reform, never restructuring the program, never trying to make it sound. Just more taxes. Throw more money at the problem and get us by another couple of years; just limp into the next century, and we will come back and address the question then. Then the linkage, the demagoging, of always $270 billion in reduced growth--not in cuts, but reduced growth--and they link this always to $245 billion in tax relief. They seem to have some kind of an objection to letting Americans keep more of their own money. If this were a repeat of the 1993 record increase in taxes they would be down here in a second to vote to raise your taxes. But if there is any talk about tax relief for American families, hard-working families, they just demagog this to death. They do not want you to keep any more of your money. Somehow, somehow the thought and the notion in this Capital City has been that the money belongs to Washington. We are going to decide how much to dole back to you, the hard-working Americans. Those who get up every morning, go to work and put in 40-plus hours a week, husband and wife trying to take care of their family--they do not think you can spend their money as wisely as they can in Washington. If they allow you to keep this $245 billion over the next 7 years, you might spend it foolishly--like on food, clothing, shelter, education for your children. You might do something stupid with your money. So, send it to Washington and they will make sure that it is spent more wisely. And talk about the scare tactics. Fearmongering--they do not fearmonger. They are not throwing out scare tactics. For the last hour, we have sat here and listened to nothing but scare tactics, that we are somehow gutting this program, that there will not be a dime for Medicare, for our senior citizens over the next 7 years or beyond. If that is not a scare tactic, telling every senior citizen in America if we do not buckle under and not give any tax relief or raise taxes, that somehow all Medicare will disappear. My grandmother is one that got one of these scare tactic letters from her Democratic Congressman in northern Minnesota. It said that somehow the Republicans are going to put you into the street because they are going to take away Medicare. Now, for a 92-year-old bedridden woman to get a letter like this, if this is not scare tactics, I do not know what is. To hear the rhetoric we have heard and will continue to hear, if that is not scare tactics, without addressing the problem, if the problem is so bad, where have the Democrats been over the last 30 years? How come all of a sudden we are on the brink of disaster, if they have all the answers today? I do not know why a $500 per child tax credits somehow does not work in with their plan. Another thing, the $270 billion in reforming Medicare. Now, if we do not do this, again, the trustees are saying it will go broke, that somehow Medicare--we know that over the next 7 years any savings in Medicare has to remain within the trust fund. There is a fire wall. In fact, Republicans have an amendment, as our amendment notes, using Medicare savings for tax cuts would be illegal under the Finance Committee bill. The Senate committee bill says it would be illegal to use it for anything but Medicare. There is no linkage. The only way we can have tax relief is if we reform it and balance the budget. If we can do that, then the benefits are going to be some tax relief for hard-working Americans who have been paying $245 billion--do you realize that is only 1.5 percent of our total expenditures over the next 7 years? But it sounds like that if somehow we give this small tax relief to American residents and hard-working middle-class families, that somehow this whole country is going to unravel; if we take this $245 billion and shift it out of Washington and into the hands of families, that somehow this whole country is going to collapse, because we have taken another $245 billion from bureaucrats in Washington to spend as they want. So, again, one other thing I want to mention, if the Government is going to somehow pay for all of this, if we cannot afford it ourselves, how can we afford to pay taxes to let the Government do it? We cannot. If we cannot as a society, as individuals or as families, somehow afford this, is the Government automatically going to have enough money in Washington? They will tax it away. Washington does not create wealth. It collects it and redistributes it. Is this good for seniors? Yes, Mr. President, it is good for seniors. It will make sure that Medicare is protected and preserved.

Mr. GRAMS. I think this is something that is so important that we cannot ignore it, and we have to make sure that Medicare is preserved and protected not for an additional 2 years but for the next generation. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS. I just have a few minutes left.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, we are beginning a truly historic week. With a vote approaching on budget reconciliation, Congress is ready to set this Nation on course toward a balanced budget. We are also ready to offer working-class Americans relief from a Federal tax burden that is crushing them and their families. The legislation we will approve this week is nothing short of revolutionary. The desperate attempts of my colleagues across the aisle to discredit the revolution are nothing short of pitiful. For several weeks now, we have had to listen to baseless statements made on the floor of this Senate about the budget reconciliation package, the kind of statements that in Minnesota we call fish stories. Now, I hate to waste a lot of time in answering such ridiculous charges, but in Washington, things that get repeated three times somehow become fact, especially in the minds of the liberal press, who will carry these charges as fact. My colleague, the junior Senator from California, was on the floor last Friday, getting in the last words before the weekend, and claimed Speaker Gingrich had made a deal with people making over $350,000 a year to give them a huge tax break but they had to settle for $5,500 back instead. The good Senator should first of all be held accountable for making such a ridiculous, baseless charge. ``Where's the beef?'' Where is the proof to back up such outlandish accusations? What she failed to say is that the Republican tax relief plan has been scored with nearly 75 percent of our $245 billion in tax cuts going to working-class families with incomes under $75,000. So why would she pick out the figure of 350,000? The answer is class warfare. It is an old trick our opponents have perfected in 1995: if you are not right, try divide and conquer. Scare people into believing things that are not true, or at best half-truths. The good Senator from California also spoke about Medicare and trustees' report warning the Medicare Program would be bankrupt by 2002. She was right when she said nearly every year, the Medicare trustees issue a report naming a date when the system faces default. But again, she failed to mention that this year, the trustees urged Congress to act quickly to save the system and stave off bankruptcy--to lessen the impact it will have on the hard-working families who pay the taxes to support it. And besides, that is no excuse to do nothing. My colleague said the Medicare system has been faced with the same problem many times, that Democrats have made some tough decisions, but have extended the life of Medicare each time. But again, she did not tell the American people that the seven times the Democrats faced those ``tough'' questions, their answer was to raise taxes on working Americans. Seven times they raised taxes in the last 30 years to keep the program going. Doubling, tripling, quadrupling your withholding taxes * * * and then doubling it again and again. Rather than finding a way to save Medicare, improve it, and hold down the costs, they would advocate a tax increase. That new tax, of course, would have to amount to $388 billion over the next 7 years, $388 billion in new payroll taxes--to feed this huge Government machine * * * a machine we cannot control now * * * a bureaucracy that is so out of control there is no efficiency, only billions in waste, fraud, and abuse. But hey, it is only the taxpayers' money, not mine. Put it on the taxpayers' credit card, they say. Funny, the Democrats never seem to have a problem in raising taxes, taking money from you and me * * * but ask [[Page S 15563]] them to support a tax cut, and they will rush to the floor in a flood of protest. They just cannot stand the pain of not being able to give away more of your dollars. They want to raise your taxes so they can be compassionate and give it away. But Mr. President, that is not compassion. That behavior is greedy and power grabbing. For over 40 years, the Democrats have been inviting people to dinner, and using the American taxpayer as the credit card to pay for it. I also heard the Democrats say they have the resolve to balance the budget, but would do it in a ``more reasonable'' way, with ``more compassion.'' The last 40 years, however, tell us how they would do it: Raise taxes, give away more money, raise taxes, give away more money. Again, watch out for that word ``compassion''--it means they want more of your hard-earned dollars so they can spend it. The President says he has the resolve to balance the budget, but he does not have a balanced budget to offer. The outlines he has put on the table have never come close to balancing the budget. They leave $200 billion-a-year-plus deficits as far as the eye can see. And what about the so-called balanced budget plan the senior Senator from North Dakota has proposed, the one my Democrat colleagues say is the answer. Again, their answer is always more taxes, and my colleague's budget is no different. I have a chart here just to compare 1993, 1994, and 1995--the Democrat budget and answer, and the Republican budget and answer. You can see in each year--1993, a $251 billion tax increase by President Clinton, the largest in history; Democrats in 1994 continue more taxes; in 1995, under the plan of the Senator from North Dakota, he would want to raise taxes another $228 billion rather than giving back $245 billion in tax cuts. His budget would supposedly balance without inflicting pain on millions of Americans, unless, of course, you include those who get up and go to work every day, the taxpayers of this country. There apparently is no pain in working longer hours to pay more in taxes. The budget offered by the Senator from North Dakota would pick your pockets to the tune of over $500 billion-plus, in additional taxes over the next 7 years. Imagine, rather than supporting a tax cut of $245 billion, their plan would be to raise another $228 billion from American taxpayers. If the growth of the Federal budget is not reduced and spending continues to increase, you need more dollars to feed the spending fire, and that is where you, the taxpayers, come in again. The Republicans have a plan that will balance the budget--eliminate the deficit--by the year 2002. Now, they say our plan will cost students more to go to school, cost families more for everything from food to clothing to shelter, the elderly will pay more for Medicare, nursing homes, et cetera. But let me ask you a simple question: if we cannot afford it as individuals, as families, as a society, how can we afford for the Government to do it for us? The money has to come from somewhere. The Government creates no wealth--it only reallocates it, redistributes it. If we do not have the money to pay the bills that need to be paid, how can we afford the taxes Washington wants in order to do it for us--to be compassionate? The Senate Democrats do not hold a monopoly on compassion. Liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, I think most of us came to this Chamber out of deep compassion for our fellow Americans. We want nothing more than for every American to have the opportunity to be successful, no matter what that means to each individual. As Edward Deming, the Father of the Japanese industrial revolution would say. We need a ``Win-win'' solution. We do not want losers in society, or those left out. We want winners. We are all better off with more winners. But somehow, according to the senior Senator from California, if you make $350,000 a year, you do not deserve it, because you have somehow gotten it illegally or unfairly. Or if nothing else, it is just not right that you have it. And if you do, the Government should step in and take it away-- whatever amount it deems ``fair''--and give it to those the Government thinks deserve it. There are individuals in this country that need our help and we are spending nearly $1.6 trillion this year to try and meet those needs the best we can, without destroying the very fabric of our society--our families and our job creators--to do it. But the rhetoric that spending is being reduced so the money can be funneled into huge tax cuts for the wealthy is a sham. The whole argument is being presented in this manner to drive your attention from the facts to the fiction, the shell game, the con man, the snake oil salesman, the Democratic opposition. President Clinton himself is guilty of this budgetary double-speak. The President raised taxes in 1993 by $251 billion. Of course, we all know that last week, he told a crowd of fat cat contributors at a $1,000 a plate fundraiser he knew they were mad and he admitted he raised taxes too much, but said it was the Republicans' fault because they would not help him stop the Democrats from spending more money. He had to raise taxes, he said. But the next day, back in Washington, he blamed that statement on being tired, reiterating his point that ``no Democrat in his right mind would ever propose cutting taxes, or saying they had raised them enough.'' They do not want the taxpayers to keep more of their own money. They do not trust you to spend it wisely. Who knows, you might ``waste it'' on food, clothing, shelter, a vacation, or by saving it for your child's education. ``Send it to Washington and we'll be compassionate with your hard- earned money,'' they say. ``Let us take care of you.'' The kind of care offered by the Democrats is suffocating the American people. To stop the suffocation, we are ready to cut their taxes, and I need to remind my colleagues across the aisle that tax relief is not dessert. Congress has been eating the taxpayers' dessert for the past 40 years. And the American people have been left only gruel to eat. Finally, when the opponents of change resort to class warfare, when they resort to statements like, ``champagne bottles are being chilled in penthouses all across the country--except in those where someone has a conscience,'' well, that is nothing but the desperate cry of a dying liberal agenda. I cannot afford champagne, but that is OK because I do not like it anyway. When I get back to Minnesota this weekend, I am going to put some beer in the cooler. And like millions of Americans across this country, we are going to celebrate a small victory over this powerful Government machine, because the people know they will be able to keep $245 billion of their own money, to spend the way they want, rather than giving it to those who claim to be compassionate. And we are going to say this is only the first in a long line of victories to come.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. No. I was going to go ahead with another statement. But I will yield to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I have no objection. I had 10 minutes reserved earlier this morning. But I know the leader wants to close off morning business as early as possible because of the remaining debate on the resolution S. 1322 dealing with the Israeli question.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also rise to speak in favor of S. 1322, which is the Israel Embassy Relocation Act. I have long supported moving the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and I firmly believe that Jerusalem should remain as the undivided capital of Israel. Earlier this year, I joined 92 of my Senate colleagues in sending a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher endorsing the transfer of the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and as an original cosponsor of S. 1322, I commend the majority leader and Senator Kyl of Arizona for their constant and persistent leadership on this issue. Of the 184 United States Embassies around the world, our Embassy in Israel is the only one that is not located in the chosen capital of the host country. Israel has been mentioned many times on the floor today as a key strategic ally for America and the only true democratic nation in the Middle East. It makes good sense that the United States Embassy should be located in the same city where the business of government is conducted. The Israeli people will not abandon the rightful claim to Jerusalem as the eternal and undivided capital, and the United States will not force them to relinquish that claim. This simply is not a negotiable matter. As the peace process continues, moving the United States Embassy to Jerusalem again will send a clear message that America supports Israel's claim to Jerusalem. It is far better that all parties in the Middle East peace process understand America's position and know that it is a clear position. By allowing our position to remain ambiguous throughout the peace talks, we would risk creating false and unrealistic expectations about the status and the destiny of Jerusalem. Critics out there, including some in the administration, try to dismiss this bill as political pandering, but during his 1992 campaign it was President Clinton who deplored the fact that ``George Bush has repeatedly challenged Israel's sovereignty over the united Jerusalem and groups Jerusalem with the West Bank and Gaza as up for negotiation. Bill Clinton and Al Gore will . . . support Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel.'' S. 1322 has strong bipartisan support with 67 cosponsors. This bill has already been modified to provide the administration with more flexibility in trying to determine the construction timetable for a new Embassy in Jerusalem, and as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I hope the administration will drop any of its remaining opposition to this important symbolic legislation. Mr. President, S. 1322 would rectify a half-century-old wrong, contribute to the ongoing peace process, implement the wishes of the American people, and it would fulfill the hopes of the Israeli people. I close by urging my colleagues to show that Congress overwhelmingly supports this effort. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am honored to join with my freshman colleagues and others this morning as we share our thoughts on the important work that is being undertaken this Congress. We may be new to the Senate, but together we carry the powerful and, in Washington, novel idea that the tax dollars are not the Government's money. While I was growing up on my family's dairy farm, we did not have much need back then, it seemed, for the Federal Government. As long as the mail got delivered and there was something to collect when they cashed in their war bonds, my folks and their neighbors really did not have much reason to concern themselves much with what was going on in Congress. They certainly did not turn to Washington when they needed a helping hand. They never really thought of doing that, and I expect they never thought anything would come of it if they tried. They did not believe Government should have the right to take as much money as it thought was fair from some Americans and, in turn, give as much money as it thought was fair to others. If the Government can confiscate the wealth of some, it can take it all from all. We agree that taxes need to be collected for our national security, our transportation, our good sewer and water systems. But we do not want our hard-earned money taken for social engineering and the redistribution of wealth, disregarding the people who have worked so very hard to earn it, invested all they had, and took, in many cases, enormous risks. If you had worked hard to save what you have, we have had a Congress over the last 30 years that believed this money actually belonged to Washington. The Democratic leaders have used your money to basically create not a level playing field, but a dependent class. They have used your money to buy, in many cases, political support and votes. There was a time in this Nation's history when neighbors counted on their neighbors for help. Whatever involvement from the Government they may have needed came partly from the State, but most of their contact with Government came at the local level. If there were improvements that were needed for the good of the community, folks scheduled a town meeting where they talked over their problems and then made those decisions. It was open democracy at its most basic level. Most important, the choices were made by the community and made voluntarily, and the town got to see exactly where their tax dollars were going and they enjoyed the direct benefits of pooling together their money. They did not need a department of education or housing or transportation. That is what families and the communities were for. But then, beginning sometime during the 1930's, while the Nation was rebounding from the Great Depression, the Federal Government began inserting itself more directly into American life, and the idea started to take hold that Washington somehow had all the answers. That philosophy grew even more quickly during the 1960's and into the 1970's. Washington became the center of power by confiscating the people's money and using that money to make decisions that Washington felt were best for the people. As that power was taken away from the American people, more and more people were forced to start relying on the Government rather than relying on each other. Mr. President, just ask your constituents. They know how much more of their tax dollars Washington has demanded year after year. Back in 1948 the average family of four paid just 3 percent of its annual income to the Federal Government. That jumped to nearly one- third of their paychecks by 1993, when President Clinton pushed a $275 billion tax hike through this Congress, a record-breaking tax increase that even now he admits was too much. Somewhere along the line, the big spenders who used to control Congress forgot just who the money really belongs to. They have passed laws that say you have to pay more so they can spend it where they see fit. When you do this for more than 30 years, they not only forget who the money really belongs to, but they begin to believe that it actually is theirs. They did this again by passing laws one at a time that say you owe Washington its due. Again, I am not saying that we do not need a strong Federal Government and it will cost us money in the form of taxes to support that, but not half of everything that we earn, while the appetite in Washington for your tax dollars continues to grow. This transfer of cash away from the local communities into the Federal coffers has stripped people of so much of their money that they have little left to invest in their own communities, toward caring for the less fortunate and to making their neighborhoods better places to live. Government has taken the place of private charity, of neighbor helping neighbor, and has even usurped the role of families, in many cases, in caring for children and in caring for the elderly. In fact, a lot of things have become the problem of the Federal Government. Already this year I have received 155,000 letters from my Minnesota constituents. The majority of those letters express opinions on the issues that we are currently debating in Congress, and I need that kind of feedback. But an ever-increasing percentage of mail we get here in the Capitol is from people looking to Washington for help. Washington creates the problem. Then Washington offers to fix it. It is a catch-22 cycle, and it certainly is not governing. If the Federal Government reduced taxes and let the people keep the dollars they earned, maybe they would not need to go to the Federal Government with those outstretched hands. [[Page S 15421]] I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Why do you denounce our plans to give working-class Americans some of their own money back through a tax cut? They argue that we cannot afford to give anybody a tax cut. But who is we, Mr. President? Is not we supposed to be the people? And how can Congress not afford to give back to the people something which is actually theirs in the first place? It is no wonder that some of our colleagues are fighting us every step of the way on our tax-cutting plans. They see the power being stripped away from them, and it scares them. The $500 per child tax credit is powerful relief for overtaxed American families. Yet, compared against 1 trillion in tax dollars which the Federal Government will collect in 1996, a tax cut that amounts to about $35 billion a year makes a pretty small dent in the national tax bill. But it is a sign that Congress has heard the people, that the tide which has tugged against the taxpayers for so long is finally beginning to shift in another direction, that someone in Washington has finally remembered that it is not the Government's money. For too many years, Congress has been eating the people's dessert while the people have been eating the gruel. Congress taxes away the workers' college fund or vacation, or their downpayment on a home, and then make the workers come to Washington looking for help. I say it is time we give them a break. Congress has enjoyed handing out other people's money so much that they have spent all the taxes that I will pay. They have even spent some of the taxes my children will pay, and they have even begun to spend some of the taxes that my grandchildren will pay. Mr. President, the soul of any democracy is the idea that the power still rests with the people. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of civilized communities against his will is to prevent harm to others. And that is something that was written by 19th century English economist, John Stewart Mill. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient. All that my freshmen colleagues and I are trying to do is give back to the people the power that rightfully rests with them. Finally, Mr. President, we will balance the budget. We are going to push ahead with our tax cuts, and at every opportunity, through our legislation or statements on the floor, we will be here to remind our fellow Senators again and again that it is not the Government's money, that it belongs to those who earn it. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, October 20, 1995, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on religious liberty.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to join in and congratulate my colleague from Pennsylvania for bringing this issue to the floor today. I just want to make a few statements in support of his effort, to put the President's so-called balanced budget on the table for debate, because I think we do need a healthy debate on both sides of the issue. I would like to read from what the President has had to say in the last 2 weeks in his radio addresses, when he talks about continually maintaining that he does have a balanced budget. He said on October 7, ``I am deeply committed to balance the Federal budget.'' A week earlier, on September 30, he said, ``I strongly believe we must balance the budget.'' He said, ``Let's be clear. Of course, we need to balance the budget.'' Well, of the three budgets that the President has put on the desk this year, none actually balances, according to the CBO, even his 10- year plan which he again touts as a balanced budget. It still leaves $200 billion-plus deficits as far as the eye can see. So the President really does not have a balanced budget at all. But at least we would like to have the opportunity to talk about it. We would like to give the other side of the aisle an opportunity to put those figures on the table. Let us debate them. Let us talk about them. Let us let the American people see the difference between the Republican plan and the Democratic plan. As you remember, back in 1993--this week the headlines have been talking about the budget of 1993 again. In fact, the President has been coming from both sides of the issue again, flip-flopping on whether he raised taxes too high. Yes, he did raise them too high. Did he make too many cuts? No. It was the spendthrift Democrats, that he could not stop their spending. So he had to raise taxes in order to balance the budget. If you look back at that balanced budget in 1993, the President has said many times we did not get one Republican vote in favor of that budget. And he is right, not one Republican voted for the President's budget. But what did Republicans do? As a Member of the House in 1993, I introduced a budget called Families First, which, by the way, now makes up much of what is in the Republican budget this year, including the $500 per child tax credit. And many of the others--Congressman John Kasich of Ohio, now the Budget chairman in the House, also introduced a budget plan in 1993. Congressman Jerry Solomon of New York, Republican, also introduced a budget of his own in 1993. So we had three definite Republican budgets on the table proposed and were voted on. We got 178 votes on my alternative Families First budget. So what we are saying is Republicans did not vote in 1993 for the President's plan, but we did vote for a budget plan that we had proposed. So what I would advocate here today, and my colleague from Pennsylvania has talked about, let us put the Democratic or the President's plan on the table so we can have a healthy debate and at least a comparison of the two plans. And then, hopefully, let us get a vote on it so the American people know where the numbers really lie and where they are. I know we are talking a lot about, and we are going to hear a lot in the debate, about the Social Security trust fund. This is a complicated issue. But the American people should know that the way the budget is set up, that all the funds from the Social Security trust fund has been used by past Democratic Congresses for the same purpose. The President's proposed budget that he maintains balances uses every dime, the same as the Republicans' do at this time for the unified budget. But what remains in the Social Security trust fund are IOU's. As my colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out, we are going to have to repay those IOU's in the very near future. That is going to mean new tax revenues in order to do it. That is the only way the Government can pay it back. So we do have a problem. We do have a luxury right now for the next few years of maintaining a surplus. But it will be easier to address this problem that we are going to be confronted with in Social Security if we stay on course and balance the budget by the year 2002. So I just hope that over the next couple days, and probably yet today, we are going to get a chance to look more at what the President's plan is, what he advocates, and get a healthy dialog and debate going on these budget issues so the American people do get a very clear picture of what the President has proposed and what Republicans propose, because this is going to be the most important issue, for not only this Congress, but for the Congresses to follow, for our children and grandchildren, because what we cannot do, morally or financially, is to leave them our debts. We have to address this problem with every ounce of energy that we have. So I hope we get a healthy debate on these issues. I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. And I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I have been sitting here listening earlier tonight to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about the numbers and problems associated with trying to balance this budget over the next 7 years, and while they have been laughing and telling jokes, not just tonight, but for the last 30 years, they have buried the American taxpayer $5 trillion in debt. It would be funny, maybe, if it were not so serious. They talk about the Social Security trust fund and that Republicans are spending every dime to balance this budget over the next 7 years. But what they fail to tell you is that they have endorsed this same practice for years. In fact, this year alone, the budget that the President of the United States that they passed in 1993 spent every dime of the surplus out of the Social Security trust fund, which, by the way, under law, can only be invested in U.S. securities, backed by the Federal Government. So that money goes to the Treasury, and it has been spent by the Congress ahead of us, by the Democratic majority. It has been spent away. So when they talk about the Republicans using every dime from the Social Security trust fund, they should look at their votes in 1993, as their President tried to mask the deficit in the budget by using those trust fund dollars. In fact, the deficit touted today by this President of $170 billion actually is using $68 billion of Social Security trust fund money from this year. Otherwise, he would have to report a deficit of about $240 billion. This Congress has inherited the troubles created over the last 30 years. It would have been a lot easier, especially politically, if we could have just continued this huge giveaway. But it would have been at the expense of the next generation. It was time to stand up and look this problem in the face and make some of those tough decisions. The Democrats talked about the drastic cuts. Just a few moments ago, my good friend from Arkansas talked about fewer dollars for education. Well, these are the first signs of the problems we are facing today because of the last 30 years and the spending spree that this Congress has been on. The Democrats have pre-spent those dollars that could be used today for education, and if we do not get this budget under control today, next year those problems are even going to be worse, and we are going to be talking about other programs that are not going to have the dollars because they are going to pay interest and other expenses. So we do have to make some very serious decisions, Mr. President. Otherwise, our next generation, and the generation after, are going to have to pay for the mistakes we have made, and we should not leave them, financially or morally, that way. It is wrong to do that. This is the first good attempt to put a balanced budget in place that is going to make sure that we do not leave our children with our debts. Mr. President, as we begin debating the tax policy, including a $245 billion tax cut, I believe that the time has come to also begin some serious discussions about how best to reform our badly outdated Tax Code itself. Since 1913, when Congress first gained the power to impose taxes on income, the Tax Code has been manipulated and expanded so many times by Congress that it has become the greatest barrier between the American people and their Government. Every segment of society has a reason to complain about the Tax Code. For individuals and families, the cost of complying with the Tax Code too often becomes the difference between making it in America, and just making do. I have spoken several times on the Senate floor about a young Minnesota family, the Wolstads, who represent the very frustrations felt by millions of Americans when it comes to the topic of taxes. Natalie Wolstad wrote to me about the enormous tax burden her family is forced to bear, a burden she and her husband did not fully appreciate until they met 1 day with their realtor, and learned they simply could not afford to purchase a new home on their own. Countless other Minnesota families have sent me letters sharing similar stories of their own. They were trying to decide, ``Where are we spending our money foolishly?'' When they finally looked at their pay stubs, they were seeing how much money was being taken from them in taxes. Yes, the Tax Code is tough on families, and it is equally hard on America's job providers--small businesses and large. When nearly 2,000 entrepreneurs gathered in Washington this summer for the third White House Conference on Small Business, they came with hundreds of ideas on how to make Government more responsive to the people who create the jobs on Main Street. Although their suggestions covered an enormous range of concerns, one point generated near-universal agreement: something must be done about the complex and costly Federal tax system. If Congress is truly serious about answering the calls of help from the American people and reforming the tax system, there are three distinct problems which must be addressed. First, taxes are too high. That is something President Clinton acknowledged this week, when he admitted that the recordbreaking tax increase he pushed through Congress in 1993 was too much for the American people. Under the headline in the paper ``Tax Rise,'' ``too much,'' President Clinton concedes. But he did take time to blame the Republicans for it. That is at a time when the Democrats controlled every branch of Government--the House, the Senate, and the White House. I welcome the President's realization, but I wish it had come before he signed the $255 billion tax hike into law. The first step toward building a better Tax Code is to look at the role of the Federal Government and let the people start keeping more of their own money, which they work for. After all, it does not belong to the Government in the first place. And who [[Page S 15333]] is in a better position to make a family's spending decisions and set their financial priorities--Washington, or the family itself? Clearly, that responsibility belongs with the family. We have the opportunity to take that first step in the next few weeks, by passing a $245 billion tax cut which includes the $500 per child tax credit I authored and have fought for over the last 3 years. I welcome President Clinton's support for tax relief, and urge him to join our efforts. By letting taxpayers keep what is rightfully theirs. we send a strong message that our efforts to balance the budget will always make taxpayers the first priority--not the last. The second area we must address when discussing reform of the Tax Code is simplification--and simplification must be at the heart of any plan Congress considers. There is nothing simple about our tax system anymore. The IRS manages a library of 437 separate tax forms and mails out 8 billion pages of tax instructions every year. The distinguished House majority leader, Representative Armey of Texas, points out that American workers and businesses spent 5.4 billion hours in 1990 just preparing their taxes--more time than it takes to build every car, truck and van manufactured in the United States each year. This Congress has made shrinkage and simplification its primary goals, and there is nothing that needs it more than our current tax system. Today's Tax Code may be good business for tax lawyers and accountants, but it is not good policy for the average American taxpayer. Tax reform must include tax simplification. The final consideration in building a better Tax Code is making it fairer and more equitable for the taxpayers. Far too often, the current system is not. The Government continually manipulates the Tax Code--not just to fund Government objectives, but to micromanage the economy and the activities of the taxpayers. If the Government wants to encourage a particular behavior, it offers a tax benefit. If it wants to discourage a particular behavior, it sets a tax penalty. The social engineers have had a field day with the Tax Code. Fairness seems to have been left by the wayside, and families are paying the price. Look how they have been manipulated through the tax system. Families, who in 1947 paid just 22 percent of their personal income in the form of taxes, today send nearly 50 cents of every dollar they earn to Federal, State, or local government. As someone who ran for Congress because of high taxes and what they are doing to this Nation, I am incensed that middle-class American families are being asked to bear the brunt of our enormous tax burden, and then listen to some Senators say that we have to increase taxes more. In fact, families with children are now the lowest income group in America--below elderly households, below single persons, below couples without children. In 1950, the average American family sent $1 out of every $50 it earned to Washington--today, the average family sends $1 out of every $4 to feed the Federal Government. The marriage penalty targets families by taxing them at a higher rate than it does single filers. And if the dependent exemption had kept up with inflation, it would be more than $8,000 today instead of just over $2,000. The message we're sending through our tax policy is that families are just not as important today as they were in 1950. That message must change. We have the opportunity and responsibility in this Congress to repair the fractured relationship between the Government and its owners--the taxpayers. It is time we started to talk seriously about cutting taxes, simplifying the system, and making it more equitable. A recent Forbes magazine cover story called tax reform a ``broad political movement, gaining in popularity the way a hurricane gathers force as it heads for land.'' The questions we should be asking ourselves are not will we ever break form the past and will we ever have a Tax Code that treats all Americans equitably, but rather when. Mr. President, the answer to that question is now, and the Senate Finance Committee has taken an enormous step toward reaching that goal with its $245 billion tax cut package. By cutting taxes for families and job-providers, simplifying the way those taxes are collected, and ensuring a process that's fair, reforming the tax system will go a long way toward making government more accountable to the people. Washington needs to be reminded that the money it collects is not theirs by right--it is collected for use at the will of the taxpayers. And Congress needs to be reminded daily that it represents the taxpayers. The success of our efforts to reform the tax system won't be measured solely by how much of their own dollars Congress allows families and job providers to keep. It will also be measured by how equitable the system is, and how the taxpayers fare under it. If we can successfully accomplish all of that, then we will have heard the message of last November and delivered on the solemn promises we made to the American people. Mr. President, it is time that we get behind this effort. It is time that we balance the budget and stop passing our deficits on to our children and grandchildren. Thank you very much. I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to talk a little this afternoon not so much about taxes but taxpayers' money and about security. Mr. President, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is certainly the most famous residential street address in America. It is, of course, the address of the White House--the crown jewel in a city that attracts 15 million visitors every year. Part of the excitement for White House guests is discovering that their President lives right alongside a busy street, just like many of them do, that his house has an address, just like theirs does. The mail carrier really does deliver letters each day to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, just exactly as it happens at every other home, in every other town in America. The White House is called the People's House because of its close relationship with the American people. It is a familiar place where visitors instantly feel at home. The city has certainly grown around them, but Pennsylvania Avenue and the White House have actually changed little since 1791, when George Washington gave his approval to Pierre L'Enfant's magnificent city plan. The bold stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue that shoots from the Capitol to the White House links the executive branch to the Legislative, physically and metaphorically. By the early 1800's, Pennsylvania Avenue had become a busy thoroughfare, bringing people closer to the White House, and closer to their Government. Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House was a natural place to hold the official ceremonies of a young nation. From there, President Lincoln reviewed troops heading off to battle in 1861. Later, dignitaries would gather on the avenue for inaugural parades. People who were lost and looking for directions used to pull their carriages up to the front door of the White House to ask for help. By the middle of this century, it was station wagons and tour buses that made their way past the Executive Mansion. Families on vacation, eager for a close-up look at the home of the President, would travel the same route their ancestors might have traveled. When ordinary citizens could drive past the White House or walk past its gate, well, that said something special about the unique openness that exists between the people and their President. By 1995, Pennsylvania Avenue--the Main Street of America--had grown up. Over 80 feet wide, the modern, seven-lane thoroughfare was being used by more than 26,000 vehicles every day in the three-block stretch fronting the White House That is, until May 20 of this year, when all traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House came to a halt. In the wake of the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City, and citing a security risk for the President, the Treasury Department shut down three blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue. For the first time in the 195- year-history of the Executive Mansion, the people are no longer allowed to drive past the people's house. The Secret Service says the street is not actually closed in front of the White House. In the Washington-speak that infects so many here, the roadway is merely restricted to vehicular traffic. Even the President, when he gave the order to close Pennsylvania Avenue, said the decision would not change very much except the traffic patterns in Washington. But a great deal more than that has changed. If you want to experience intense security, try driving to the White House--even as an invited guest, with permission to park on the grounds. A bunker mentality has taken hold. Massive concrete barriers block Pennsylvania Avenue, keeping out unwanted traffic. The fortress-like effect is compounded by dozens of concrete posts inset into the White House sidewalk. Police cruisers patrol every intersection. Vans--engines running, manned by officers with dogs--wait in the parking areas. Uniformed Secret Service officers guard their new security stations, circulate among the tourists and patrol the White House lawn. Motorcycle officers and even officers on bicycles are there, too. If you look carefully, you will see figures on the White House roof itself, binoculars in hand. Drive into a parking area and you are stopped by armed officers who ask if anyone has given you explosives to carry. You are told to pull forward, where you are met by another officer, who asks to check your trunk as he puts his bomb-sniffing dog through its paces. Mr. President, I think it is safe to say that very few visitors feel at home these days at the White House. The openness is gone. The closeness is gone. It has all been replaced with intimidation and fear. The place is secure now--secure as a fortress--but what have we sacrificed for that security? The cost of trading security for freedom cannot be calculated mathematically, but the cost can indeed be measured in three ways. First, the knee-jerk closing of a major artery such as Pennsylvania Avenue has had a devastating financial cost for the District of Columbia and its businesses, its commuters, its tourists, its residents. With the avenue closed for three blocks, and several surrounding streets blocked off as well, the people who live, work, and visit here and give life to this city are beginning to feel choked off from it. Nearby businesses and offices are no longer as accessible to employees and clients. Traffic hassles compound the problem. A great deal of parking space has been eliminated. And most troubling is the fact that the President ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Treasury Department carried it out, without any consultation with the District, without any direct public input from the people this action would most disrupt. Add up the lost parking revenue, the cost of changing street signs and signals, higher Metrobus subsidizes, and police overtime, and as of June 30 of this year, the District estimated that closing Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House had cost nearly $750,000. No one is willing to guess how high that figure might be today. And that does not begin to take into account the other indirect costs of the closing. How has this affected tour bus operators? They can no longer drive their customers--many of whom are strapped for time, or unable to walk the extra three or four blocks--to drive past the White House. How has this affected the public bus system? In order to provide the same services it offered before the Pennsylvania Avenue shutdown, transit officials estimate they will have to spend up to $200,000 more every year by adding new buses and new drivers. How has this affected local businesses and the customers who park nearby? That impact has yet to be calculated. Mr. President, the people who depend on open access to Pennsylvania Avenue for their livelihoods say they have accepted the present closure, but they are not going along with the idea that the avenue must be blockaded forever. That case has simply not been made, they say. I agree. The second measure of the cost of this closing is the direct hit it means for the taxpayers. The Federal Government has since repaid the District for some of the $750,000 in costs but, of course, that means the taxpayers have once again been handed the bill. And there are more bills to come. At an open house today at the White House Visitor Center, the National Park Service is soliciting public input into the future of this vital stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue. They have devised what they call an ``interim beautification plan'' for the 1,600-foot strip of the avenue between Lafayette Park and the White House. It involves replacing large sections of the asphalt with grass, replacing the police cruisers at each end of the avenue with guard booths equipped with steel barricades, and replacing the old concrete barriers with new concrete barriers disguised as planters. ``Beautification,'' if that is what you want to call it, does not come cheaply. Implementing this plan will cost the taxpayers an additional $1.3 million, and it is only temporary. The proposed [[Page S 15268]] permanent, and certainly more expensive, plan for the site will be put in place just a couple of years from now. Most Americans will not have the opportunity to visit the White House Visitor Center today to offer their comments. Most will not even know that the future of Pennsylvania Avenue is under discussion. But if they were here, I know they would have strong feelings they would want to share about the Government's plans to limit public access to the White House. And that is the third way to measure the price we pay when we trade security for freedom: by calculating the high cost of Washington's paranoia on the national psyche. Mr. President, all Americans are deeply concerned about the safety of their President. The security measures used to protect him must be well thought out, appropriate, and thorough. I do not question the desire to afford him every ounce of security we can muster, but I do question whether we can satisfy that desire without sacrificing the people's freedoms. The balance between security and freedom has been tipped too far in favor of security. Mr. Mark McCurry, the President's spokesman, says the American people ``will have greater access to the front of the White House as a result of some of the changes they want to make.'' But that just is not so. How can we cut off traffic from a historic stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue and claim we are improving access? Once the ball starts rolling, where does it stop? Already, the drastic security measures undertaken on Pennsylvania Avenue have set a precedent and are being mirrored here on Capitol Hill. Access to two streets on the Senate side of the Capitol have been shut off. Parking has been eliminated or restricted in many places. Security at the Capitol itself has been tightened dramatically. Officials in other Federal buildings are asking that parking meters be removed from their sidewalks, too. Where does it end? How much of Washington, DC, are we going to have to rope off before the public figures out we simply do not want them here? As tragic as it sounds, that is the message we are sending to America. Mr. President, on behalf of the American people who are not here to stand up for themselves, I ask my colleagues to join me in denouncing the assault on our freedoms being undertaken on Pennsylvania Avenue. President Clinton has gone too far, but it is not too late to halt his efforts to close off the people's house on America's Main Street from the people themselves. I urge that we take action now, before a single spadeful of earth is turned. In Le Roy, MN, population 900, the town's weekly newspaper reflected recently on Washington's current obsession with security. I would like to read some of it: ``We also wonder about the cost of the security around the Nation's capitol and if this much security is truly needed,'' wrote Al Evans in the Le Roy Independent. ``We are sure any midwesterner visiting there would question this. Perhaps we in this area of the country are too trusting, but there are limits to security measures. The folks in Le Roy, MN, understand that closed streets do not equate with an open democracy. Why do not the Washington bureaucrats and politicians get it? For 195 years, the address 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has been a symbol of a government accessible to the people. Yet our government of the people, by the people, and for the people is slowly becoming a government just a little farther away from the people, too. It is time we stood up and said ``that is enough.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as an author of the $500 per child tax credit, I want to join other Republicans this morning and am very pleased to express my support for the Senate Finance Committee's tax- cut package. I want to congratulate the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, for keeping his pledge to fight for the entire $245 billion tax-cut package and also for making the $500 per child tax credit the centerpiece of the committee's plan. This plan represents the true change that the American voters called for last November. Contrary to the longstanding belief inside the Washington beltway, tax dollars do not belong to the Government; they belong to the taxpayers. Cutting taxes is not some kind of reward to the American people; it is rightfully their money to keep. Now, when I introduced the $500 per child tax credit as part of my Family First legislation in 1993, I had high expectations, but I never thought we would make so much progress so quickly. But then, again, I never counted on a revolution in 1994. As we Americans know, revolutions do occur over tax policy. Just think of the Boston Tea Party, which paved the way toward the American Revolution, which was staged over a tax of just one-half of 1 percent. Now, that does not seem like much when it is compared to the President's $255 billion tax hike that we were fighting just 2 years ago, the largest tax increase in American history. Then came November 1994, a second American revolution, which turned the Washington elite on their heads. With it, along with the dramatic change demanded by the voters, comes the opportunity to disprove the liberals' well-worn philosophy that your salary somehow belongs to the Government. With just one election the American people stopped this tax-and-spend trend in its tracks, and it reminded Washington to get off our backs and to get out of our back pockets. By passing the $500 per child tax credit, the Senate will give nearly $500 million a year in tax relief to families in Minnesota every year. It will be $25 billion in tax relief for Americans across this country every year. And the benefits of this tax credit will be directed where it is needed most, and that is to the middle-class Minnesotans and all Americans who work hard, pay their bills, and finance the Federal Government with their tax dollars. But most important, we will keep the promises we made to the American people. Minnesotans elected me to the [[Page S 15190]] Senate to balance the budget, reduce the size of Government, and to allow average working-class people to keep more of their hard-earned tax dollars. And the passage of the $500 per child tax credit is the best message that we can send that our promises will be kept. While we still may need to work out all the details of this plan, we should all agree on the overall thrust of empowering people, not Government; rewarding taxpayers, not the bureaucrats; and take money out of Washington and leave it in the hands of the people who have earned it. We cannot back down now. We must continue to push ahead in spite of the criticism that is aimed our way by the defenders of the status quo. They will try to chip away at this tax cut in an attempt to maintain the grip that they have held on your salary for the past 40 years. So I encourage my colleagues to resist these attacks, to be proud of our efforts to cut taxes, because it is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I again commend Chairman Roth and the majority leader for producing this tax package. I look forward to supporting a balanced budget and a $245 billion tax-cut plan here on the Senate floor. We can do both. We must. We will cut taxes and we will balance the budget this year. Thank you very much. I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, my Minnesota office is located in the town of Anoka, the Halloween capital of the world. For most of my neighbors there, a good scare means nothing more than a Halloween visit to a haunted house, or maybe a roller coaster ride at the amusement park, or an evening in front of the TV watching old horror movies. So who would have ever guessed that, in 1995, the list of ways to give somebody a good scare would include handing them a letter from their U.S. Congressman. There is a campaign of fear and misinformation being waged around us, Mr. President, and I come to the floor today to share with you my absolute contempt for it, and my sincere sympathy for its innocent victims. The perpetrators? My colleagues in the minority party, in both Chambers, who are sinking to new lows as they fight desperately against the tide of public opinion that came crashing down on them last November. Their victims? Senior citizens, who have done nothing to deserve this kind of treatment, except, apparently, to grow old. Let me tell you about one of those victims. She is 91 years old, and for the last couple of years, she has lived in a nursing home in the town of Cambridge, MN. Her name is Ethel Grams, and she is my grandmother. My grandmother received a letter, delivered right to her nursing home bed, from her Representative in the House. And I am appalled that older Americans, who are among the most vulnerable in society, are being subjected to these kinds of scare tactics, fear-mongering, and blatant, self-serving distortions. The letter is about Medicare, and is sprinkled--liberally--with inflammatory phrases like drastic cuts and benefits coming under attack. Her Congressman writes of Republicans, quote ``coercing seniors into health plans'' and ``herding as many seniors as possible into managed health care programs.'' ``Republicans in Congress are proposing to cut Medicare by $270 billion over the next 7 years,'' he writes, ``in order to pay for a tax cut of $245 billion for the wealthiest of Americans--those making over $350,000 a year.'' Those assertions would be laughable if they were not so serious. Mr. President, imagine suggesting to a 91-year-old woman, bedridden in a nursing home, that her health care plan is under attack, that with Republicans in the majority, the medical benefits she is relying upon will be slashed. What is she supposed to think? How could she not be scared? I cannot speak for every senior citizen, but I know how much it frightened my grandmother. Unfortunately, this is not the only example of the damage being spread through this campaign of fear. [[Page S 14960]] Another of my colleagues has mailed out his own letter to seniors, at taxpayer's expense, and portions of it were printed recently in the St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch. This Congressman wrote of drastic cuts and proclaimed that ``the GOP plan in Congress would force seniors to give up their personal doctor.'' ``Millions of seniors would be forced into managed care programs. * * * While older Americans pay more for Medicare,'' he wrote, ``the privileged will pay less in taxes, with some receiving lavish tax breaks.'' Newsweek aptly labels the Democrats' campaign as ``Medi-Scare'' in a cover story last month. Let me quote a paragraph for you: ``Democrats depict the GOP's Medicare plan as a bloodthirsty attack on the elderly. ``More people will die,'' declares a hysterical new ad from the AFL-CIO. ``And it's only for the sake of tax cuts for the rich,'' says Democrat Ed Markey of Massachusetts. ``That's hyperbole, for sure,'' writes Newsweek. It is more than hyperbole. Anywhere else, this would be labeled, at best, a blatant distortion of the truth and the State attorneys general would be called in to investigate. In Washington, we call the practice spin control. This is the only city I know where once a lie is repeated three times, it is accepted by most as being a fact. Mr. President, it is time we hold our colleagues accountable for their misrepresentations, and, beginning today, that is what I intend to do. They say our plan to preserve Medicare, cuts benefits to seniors--I say ``show me.'' They say the majority of our tax cuts will go to the rich--I say ``show me.'' They say we are forcing seniors to give up their doctors--I say ``show me.'' But I know they cannot, because the facts say otherwise. Fact No. 1: We have to reform Medicare to ensure quality health care for our seniors at a cost we can honestly afford. Unless we do, there are only two options. Either the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund, which has provided health care services for 37 million Americans, will go out of business, bankrupt in 7 years, or we can raise taxes on our seniors and working families by $388 billion over the next 7 years. That is the option the Democrats have chosen seven times over the past three decades--they have reduced benefits and raised taxes. But going to the taxpayers for more money is the easy way out, and Americans have said ``enough.'' They are demanding reform, not higher taxes. Fact No. 2: We are going to save Medicare by increasing spending, but at a slower rate not with the dangerous cuts breathlessly predicted by the Democrats. Medicare spending under the Republican plan will increase by 40 percent, from $4,800 per beneficiary this year to $6,700 in the year 2002. Like Americans do every month around their kitchen tables, we have set a budget we can afford, and then decided the best way to deliver the benefits. We are not promising benefits and then raising taxes again and again to pay for them. Fact No. 3: Medicare reform has no connection at all to our efforts to provide tax relief to the middle-class taxpayers, the working families who so desperately need it. With or without tax cuts, Medicare is in severe financial trouble. Even President Clinton, who has been virtually absent during the Medicare debate, realizes that. In fact, the budget he proposed last June combined slowing the growth in Medicare spending with $110 billion in tax cuts. The Washington Post addressed the attempt to link tax relief and Medicare reform in a September 25 editorial: The Democrats have fabricated the Medicare-tax cut connection because it is useful politically. It allows them to attack and to duck responsibility both at the same time. We think it's wrong. Fact No. 4: The vast majority of the tax relief in the Republican budget is directed right where it is needed most--to middle-class American families. Every family with children will benefit from the $500 per child tax credit, and more than 85 percent of the children eligible for it live in families with incomes at or below $75,000. These families are not the privileged or the wealthiest of Americans. They are average folks who are struggling to meet their tax burden while trying to make a good life for themselves. Those are the facts, Mr. President. They are an honest attempt to look at the options, the costs, and the consequences--we are not taking some figures and then blatantly distorting them and proclaiming them as truth. If my colleagues want to write and distribute fiction, they ought to label it as such and sell it through the Book of the Month Club. The taxpayer-financed fiction like the letter received by my grandmother--and similar letters received by hundreds of thousands of other senior citizens--must come to an end. Government does have the power to do good, but the minority party undermines everyone's credibility when it preaches the politics of fear. I suggest the next time someone wants to scare a senior citizen, they should invite over a willing relative and pop in a videotape of ``Frankenstein'' or ``The Silence of the Lambs.'' Do not threaten the security of strangers, and do not prey on their fears, because it is immoral and it is wrong, and it should be shame on them, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the Federal job training system, as we know, is broken. The current patchwork of 163 programs is failing to give us the results we need as a Nation to compete in a worldwide economy. Furthermore, we can no longer afford the $25 billion it costs American taxpayers each year. To improve results, the legislation before us will send one block grant to the States allowing each State to invest this money in the most efficient and effective employment programs. But with those dollars comes responsibilities. States would be accountable for how that money is spent. The State must be able to show how it meets or exceeds several specific performance standards. Such standards include increasing the number of job placements, increasing the length of time participants stay employed and increasing participant earnings. While these are noble goals, as it currently stands, S. 143 requires the plan to be developed into three distinct parts: The strategic plan, the work force education plan, and the work force employment plan. It also requires the block grant to be set aside into three separate pots of money: 25 percent for the Governor; 25 percent for the State education agency; and 50 percent for a flex account which is jointly administered by a broad-based group of State officials and private sector individuals. After consulting with officials in my home State of Minnesota, it is clear that Minnesotans strongly support this bill, and they are anxious to assume the duty of training and placing of Minnesota workers. However, Minnesota wants to go one step further and coordinate its efforts for education and training. Under the current bill, Minnesota and every other State would be required to create three separate plans covering education and training. My amendment would provide States with a choice. I understand there are occasions when separate efforts may be desired. However, the Federal Government should not stand in the way of States wishing to coordinate those efforts. A State should be allowed to implement a work force State development strategy without divided State plans. If the Governor and State education agency can both agree to work through a collaborative State partnership, they should be allowed to. My amendment would give States that option. By allowing States to form a collaborative effort in planning both sides of the block grant, States like Minnesota will be able to save time and resources, as well as to maximize the benefits to its workers. My amendment requires the consent of the Governor, the State education agency, the State postsecondary agency, and representatives of vocational education and community colleges before the option to integrate into one State plan can be implemented. My amendment also ensures that work force education and work force employment activities are integrated to the greatest extent possible within the constraints of State laws regarding educational authority. It gives the State the option, again, only if the Governor and the State election officials agree, to integrate State planning for the block grant by using the collaborative effort. The State will be allowed to develop one strategic plan tailored to the needs of the State to develop all areas that are required under the bill. Most important, my amendment unifies State accountability for program performance by placing the responsibility for setting State performance indicators by all parts of the block grant with the same collaborative process that develops the State goals and benchmarks. Lastly, State accountability is strengthened under this amendment. If a Federal partnership finds that a State which has exercised its option to integrate has failed to make progress toward work force employment or educational goals, it may recommend a sanction of up to 10 percent from the State's block grant. However, for States that do not exercise the integrated option, the Federal partnership can sanction the part of the plan that does not meet the benchmarks, up to 10 percent. Under this scenario, only one-half of the sanction will return to the Federal partnership; the other half will remain in the State but will be transferred to the administrator of the programs that are meeting those goals. Mr. President, in conclusion, this amendment will ensure that States have the option to put forth the most efficient strategy for implementing its block grant. My amendment protects State education agency authority by expressly requiring agreement between all of the parties before exercising the option. It also maintains strict sanctions for States that do not meet those benchmarks. Furthermore, my amendment has the strong support of Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson, the National Governors' Association, and the Republican Governors' Association Workforce Development Task Force. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Governors' Association outlining that support be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. GRAMS. I have nothing more to add.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the task force includes Governor Thompson of Wisconsin, Governor Engler of Michigan, Governor Branstad of Iowa, Governor Voinovich of Ohio, and Governor Whitman of New Jersey. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues for the honest debate which has produced the legislation we will vote on later today . . . legislation which takes a solid step toward fixing our badly broken welfare system. Both sides have put forth credible arguments, and more often than not we've been able to work together to find common ground. Yes, we may disagree on many of the details of this compromise legislation . . . but we all agree that the welfare system is in desperate need of an immediate overhaul. These facts are clear and indisputable: today, one American child in seven is being raised on welfare . . . one in three children is now born out of wedlock. And despite the $5.4 trillion taxpayer dollars we have funneled into the welfare system over the last 30 years, the poverty level has remained nearly the same. Three years ago, during his presidential campaign, President Clinton promised the American people that he would ``end welfare as we know it.'' Since then, however--even though his party controlled both the House and Senate--the welfare system remained untouched. Today, less than one year after Republicans gained control of both Chambers, we are on the verge of passing legislation to dramatically reform a welfare system which has too often entrapped both welfare recipients . . . and the taxpayers who subsidize them. At the heart of our legislation is the strong message from this Senate that the days of welfare without work are over. The American taxpayers are fed up, Mr. President. They go to work every day--both spouses, more often than not--and struggle to make ends meet while trying to carve out a better life for themselves and their families. They make a combined average income of $47,000 . . . but hand over more than a third of that to the Federal Government. And when they see those precious tax dollars going to support welfare recipients who simply refuse to work . . . well, they have every right to be furious. The taxpayers of this country have always been generous . . . but nobody likes to be taken for a fool. The ``pay for performance'' provisions of this welfare reform legislation offered by myself and Senator Shelby are intended to put accountability into the system. If a welfare recipient wants a federal check, all we ask is that they start making a contribution to society . . . to their own future . . . by working for that money. It is hardly a revolutionary concept. Every taxpayer in the Nation does the very same thing. I am proud that this bill incorporates a second amendment of mine to further strengthen its work requirements. This amendment permits states--for the purpose of meeting their work participation rate--to count no more than 25% of their welfare caseload as ``working'' if they are enrolled in vocational education. Without my amendment, the work requirements in this bill could be circumvented by substituting vocational education for actual time spent on the job. It is already happening in many states, where officials are avoiding the work requirements of the 1988 ``Family Self-Sufficiency Act'' by counting voc-ed programs as work. Let me make this clear, Mr. President--work does not mean sitting in a classroom. Work means work. Any farm kid who rises before dawn for the daily chores can tell you that. Ask any of my brothers and sisters what ``work'' meant on our family's dairy farm. It didn't mean sitting on a stool in the barn, reading a book about how to milk a cow. ``Work'' meant milking cows. Now, I am not opposed to vocational education. Not every voc-ed program can be considered a success, but we are fortunate to have a number of effective programs operating in Minnesota . . . and we need to continue to give these kinds of efforts a chance. But my neighbors back home are tired of sending other people's kids through school. They are struggling to send their own children to school. They want this government to reflect their values--hard work, respect, personal responsibility, and accountability. It sometimes seems that the work ethic upon which this Nation was founded has gotten a little dusty. For example, experts say that less than one percent of the adults who receive welfare benefits are currently engaged in real work. That is a sharp departure from the past: during the Great Depression, welfare beneficiaries were expected to work for the assistance they received through federal programs such as the Civilian Conservation Corp and the Work Progress Administration. What has changed? Mr. President, the government has become the first call for help. But what we too often forget is that the government is funded by other people's money . . . and should be the last call for help. One leading welfare expert sums it up quite clearly: ``In welfare, as in most other things, you get what you pay for. By undermining the work ethic, the welfare system generates its own clientele. The more that is spent, the more people in apparent need of aid who appear.'' What is most troubling of all is that because there are no incentives to move themselves off welfare and into the workforce, too many welfare mothers and fathers have given up the search for that better life. And the taxpayers who foot the bill feel powerless, too. Mr. President, if we ever want welfare recipients to become self- sufficient, we must begin holding them to the same standards that apply to the taxpayers. How can we ever expect welfare beneficiaries to lift themselves up if we continue to ask less of them than we do of every other productive, taxpaying American citizen? By allowing states to count 25% of their welfare caseload as ``working'' if they are engaged in vocational education, my amendment closes a gaping loophole . . . strengthens the work requirement . . . and gives states the flexibility to continue successful vocational education programs, while recognizing there is no substitute for work. Most importantly, this amendment moves welfare recipients a bit closer toward self-sufficiency. Mr. President, the Majority Leader's welfare reform legislation is a serious first step toward fixing our fractured welfare system. While I am pleased that both of my tough work amendments were included in this final bill, I recognize that we still have a ways to go before we can say we've truly conquered the welfare problem. Many important provisions which were not included in the Senate bill will be addressed by the House-Senate Conference Committee. I look forward to the Senate's consideration of the conference report . . . which I hope truly will end welfare as we know it. That is what we promised the American people, and that is what we must deliver. ``Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing,'' said Theodore Roosevelt. I urge my colleagues to hear those words and give this bipartisan legislation their support. It is good for welfare families . . . it is good for the taxpayers . . . and it is good government.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I am submitting Senate Resolution 174, which expresses the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of State should aggressively pursue the release of political and religious prisoners in Vietnam. My resolution has been prompted by the recent sentencing of two American citizens for attempting to organize a conference in Vietnam to discuss democracy and human rights. These two American citizens, Mr. Nguyen Tan Tri and Mr. Tran Quang Liem, were detained for 2 years by the Vietnamese without charge. Mr. Tri has now been sentenced to a 7- year prison term and Mr. Liem to 4 years. Both are in ill health. The resolution calls for the Secretary of State to pursue the release of these two prisoners as well as other American citizens--I understand that American citizens from the State of Virginia are imprisoned in Vietnam as well--and all political and religious prisoners in Vietnam. The President has just normalized relations with Vietnam. I supported normalization, because I believe it will give us more leverage with the Vietnamese Government to pursue outstanding issues such as MIA's/POW's and the release of those imprisoned in violation of international law after expressing political and religious views. Not only are people jailed for espousing political views, but those who seek religious freedoms are as well. Persecution of Buddhist leaders is rampant. Catholic and other Christian leaders have also been imprisoned allegedly for political activities under the guise of their religion. I was disappointed that Secretary Christopher and Secretary Lord did not address this matter with Vietnamese officials in Vietnam shortly after normalization was announced. While I appreciate the efforts of consular officers in Vietnam and lower-level State Department officials to address this matter with their peers in the Vietnamese Government, I believe this issue should have been addressed directly by Secretary Christopher. Mr. President, I am told that Vietnam has now agreed to retry the cases of at least the two Americans. We do not know when, or if, that may occur. In my judgment, it is important to pass this resolution immediately to show Senate support for a quick resolution of this situation. Passage of this resolution is being coordinated with other concerned governments. Last week the Canadian Parliament adopted a similar resolution, and the Australian Parliament will adopt one very shortly. If we are to have a diplomatic relationship with Vietnam, we must work with them at the highest levels of government to urge them to honor their commitment under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by releasing all religious and political prisoners. We must also urge Vietnam to continue our efforts to obtain a full accounting of MIA's/ POW's. I urge my colleagues to support the effort to pass this resolution under unanimous consent today.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 7, 1995, at 10 a.m. to consider an overview of affirmative action.