Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 21, the Bosnian Self-Defense Act. I want to commend the majority leader for his strong and principled leadership in responding to the escalating crisis in Bosnia. His decisive move to bring this legislation to a vote may prove to be a turning point for U.S. policy in the Balkans. I, like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have had grave reservations about our Bosnian policy for several years, and even the hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have done little, if anything, to alleviate my concerns. Frankly, I am amazed at this administration's refusal to recognize numerous foreboding signs for the U.N. mission in Bosnia. On May 8, the General Accounting Office released a report on the so- called peace operations in Bosnia. In that report GAO states that ``UNPROFOR has been ineffective in carrying out mandates leading to lasting peace in the former Yugoslavia.'' Moreover, it continues, ``UNPROFOR's limited effectiveness to deter attacks and provide protection stems from an approach to peacekeeping that is dependent on the constant cooperation of the warring parties.'' And finally, GAO concludes, ``UNPROFOR [has] lost credibility as a peacekeeping force * * *'' I point out this report was released before the Bosnian Serbs took hundreds of U.N. peacekeepers hostage, before the Serbs shot down an American pilot on a NATO operation and before the Serbs began storming so-called U.N. safe areas. Mr. President, the GAO's report foreshadowed what many in Congress have now concluded, that is, the U.N. operation in Bosnia has failed and is moving toward a state of complete collapse. UNPROFOR cannot even meet the most minimal of its mandates. The U.N. force can no longer protect itself, let alone civilians in safe areas. Moreover, the ongoing offensive by Bosnian Serb forces against U.N.-declared safe areas has underscored the folly of the arms embargo. Imposed before Bosnia even officially existed, the embargo has consistently denied the Bosnians the right to defend themselves. There is not one Member of Congress, not one member of the State Department, and not one member of the Clinton administration who would deny that the arms embargo has allowed the Bosnian Serbs to preserve a powerful military advantage. With the help of the arms embargo, the 80,000-man Bosnian Serb militia has dominated 70 percent of Bosnia through its near monopoly of heavy weapons. Even with 200,000 soldiers, the Bosnian Government simply cannot compete. The occupation of U.N. safe areas by Bosnian Serbs is the beginning of the end for the U.N. mission. It is another gruesome admission of how the arms embargo continues to condemn the Bosnian people to a slow death. In Srebrenica, Bosnian troops actually outnumbered the attacking Serbs, but the Serb forces had far more firepower. Bosnian forces had no tanks or artillery with which to defend themselves, and once again the United Nations waited too long to call in NATO, too late for airstrikes to make a difference. Now, the opponents of lifting the arms embargo have repeatedly said they fear the Serbs would make a grab for the ``safe areas'' in eastern Bosnia. But the Serbs have not waited, even with the embargo in place and UNPROFOR on the ground. The United Nations, with American assistance, is perpetuating a cruel hoax on the Bosnian people. We force them to fight without adequate defenses, promise to protect them from hostile Serb troops, [[Page S 10296]] and then let them fend for themselves when they are attacked. So far the American taxpayers have provided $2.5 billion to support the U.N. operations in Bosnia and they continue to support UNPROFOR to the tune of $500 million a year. Added to this sum is the administration's new pledge to provide another $95 million in cash and military equipment to the European rapid reaction force. Now, this latest action was taken in spite of strong congressional opposition, and it only threatens to deepen United States involvement in the Bosnian quagmire. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration seems determined to sink or swim with the status quo policy in Bosnia. If the President continues to stay the course, he will be in danger of dragging down the Bosnian people, along with American and NATO credibility. Supporters of lifting the arms embargo in Bosnia are often accused of being naive and unrealistic. I am neither. Ending the embargo is far from a perfect solution. There are many logistical questions that remain to be worked out. But given the events of the last few months, let alone the last few weeks in Bosnia, I see no other option in a civil war with no end in sight and with no peace agreement within reach. It is those who support the current Bosnian policy who have lost touch with reality. The U.N. peacekeeping mission cannot sustain itself in a country where there is no peace to keep. The United Nations has never been equipped to enforce peace on factions that are still spoiling for war. It is time for the administration to stop acting as if some miracle will occur to save the day. Just last month the House of Representatives approached an end to the arms embargo with a bipartisan and veto-proof vote of 318 to 99. I urge my colleagues to follow that example and also send a strong message of our own to the President by voting for S. 21. I believe it is the least we can do for the Bosnians and the very least that the American people can expect. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, leader time has been reserved for today. There will be a period for morning business until 10 a.m. At 10 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of S. 343, that is the regulatory reform bill, with the Glenn substitute amendment pending. The first votes today will begin at 6 p.m. The first one will be a 15-minute vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Dole-Johnston substitute amendment to S. 343. That will be followed by any votes ordered on or in relation to amendments considered throughout the session today. Further votes are also expected beyond those ordered for 6 p.m., and a late night session is possible in order to make progress on the regulatory reform bill. Also today, Senators are reminded under the rule XXII, second-degree amendments to the Dole-Johnston substitute must be filed by 5 p.m. today in order to qualify postcloture. Also, a second cloture motion on the Dole-Johnston amendment was filed on Friday, which will ripen tomorrow, if necessary. In connection with that cloture motion, any further first-degree amendments must be filed by 1 p.m. today.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, any successful entrepreneur who starts out small and gradually builds their business up knows about bureaucracy. As his or her company grows, so do the piles of paperwork, and the number of employees handling it, and pretty soon projects that used to take a day are taking weeks, or even longer. Lines of communication that used to be clear and open become tangled and confused. What began as a lean machine too often turns into a convoluted, Rube Goldberg contraption. ``In every small business lies the seeds of a bureaucracy.'' I read that line in a recent column in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune-- a piece by Mark Stevens entitled ``Action Needed to Guard Against Bureaucracy.'' ``Rules begin to sprout,'' wrote Mr. Stevens, ``and procedures start to take hold that do more to complicate life than to achieve objectives. Left unchecked, these enemies of efficiency tend to multiply until they choke the business.'' How many entrepreneurs, do you suppose, have choked on their own enemies of efficiency? How many have been done in by a self-generated bureaucracy that simply ate up resources, devoured precious time, and clouded the original goals outlined in the business' master plan? Judging by the rate that small businesses come and go in this country, I guess that it is a significant number. Bureaucracy is a lot like hail on a cornfield--a little is not going to hurt, but too much of it can be disastrous. And nobody knows more about bureaucracy than the folks who work here on Capitol Hill. Mr. Stevens was writing about small business in his article, but he could just as easily have been describing the [[Page S 10080]] Federal Government--the biggest bureaucracy this world has ever known. I have said it often: small business and Government actually have a great deal in common. But the bureaucratic problems that can plague a small business are magnified a million times in Washington. Imagine having so many new regulations that it took 65,000 pages to print them last year alone. Imagine having so many employees that you are not only far and away the largest employer in the Nation, but your annual receipts put you at the very top of the Fortune 500 list as well. Imagine having your finger in so many pies that diversified is just too small a word to describe your operation. Your employees are overseeing thousands of individual little bureaucracies, thousands of programs, projects, and agencies that have taken on lives of their own, and have little accountability to the home office or the folks who ultimately pay the bills--the taxpayers. That is the Federal Government. But just as small business owners need to take steps to clear out the cobwebs of bureaucracy and get back to basics to survive, so should Washington. In fact, the line that originally caught my eye in Mr. Steven s article could easily be turned around to read: ``In every bureaucracy lies the seeds of a small business.'' Re-exposing those seeds to the light of day and refocusing on the basics is the key to what we are now trying to create in Congress--a Federal Government that runs with the same efficiency as an effective small business. In his column, Mr. Stevens outlined four steps that managers can use to gauge whether a business is drowning in bureaucracy, and suggestions on how to turn things around if it is. His ideas work equally well when applied to the Federal Government. Step No. 1: Review company rules and procedures, questioning why they were established and, equally important, if they still make sense. [Eliminate] anything that detracts from your company's ability to achieve its business objectives rapidly and productively. Of course, the National agenda changes with time and circumstances, but we are in a period now where our objectives, as mandated by the voters, seem better focused than ever. Provide for the Nation's needs, protect the unprotected, and unshackle our job providers, so that they are able to put more Americans to work in new, higher paying jobs. Mountains of Federal rules and procedures litter the track and keep the objectives out of reach. Sure, they may create Federal jobs--after all, there are some 128,000 regulators on the Federal payroll--but in reality they are job-killers for the private sector, with a cost to the economy as high as $1.65 trillion each year. More Government jobs are not the answer. That is why the efforts in this Congress toward regulatory reform, and the legislation we are considering on the floor, are so critical. Cutting back the forest of Federal regulations will make Government more efficient. Loosening the bureaucracy will free Government to meet its objectives. Step No. 2: Take a fresh look at payroll, asking if you really need all of the people who work at your company. Investigate whether some people have been added to back up others--who have little to do themselves--or to enforce the wasteful rules and procedures already in place. Small business owners often work 80-hour weeks just to barely break even. When they see how the Government wastes their tax dollars, they get furious. They could not run their business the way Congress runs the Government, with reckless overspending and billion dollar deficits. The Government would toss them in jail. Many businesses, large and small, realized during the past decade that bigger does not necessarily mean better. To help boost their profit margin and cut back on the waste, they began downsizing. It is a move that has saved many businesses from extinction and returned them to profitability, and it is a move being duplicated here in Washington. We call it ``reinventing Government.'' With fewer rules and regulations clogging the pipeline, fewer Federal employees are needed to enforce them, and fewer taxpayer dollars are wasted. But re-inventing does not just apply to the number of people on the payroll, because bureaucracy is more than just employees--it is also the programs that the employees create, enlarge, and regulate. In the balanced budget resolution we have crafted, this Congress has taken a close look at each and every place we are spending the taxpayers' dollars. If a program or an agency does not meet the test of relevancy, if it is not meeting an important national need during tight economic times, then perhaps this nation can do without it. Small business makes these tough decisions every day--it is about time Congress makes some tough decisions, too. Writes Mr. Stevens: Unless you rid your company of this dead wood, you will be building a bloated company that is likely to sink under its own weight. Step No. 3: Make certain that accountability is built into every job. Every personal function and responsibility should be monitored and evaluated. Be sure that seniority is not the criterion for promotion. There is a strong correlation to this in Washington. When it comes to spending decisions on the Federal level, the effectiveness of a Government program does not always determine whether it gets funded year after year. Far too often, Government programs get their annual funding simply because they are there. Unmonitored and unevaluated, they are often automatically renewed for decades. And nothing breeds more bureaucracy than an entity which never needs to justify its existence. If Washington is serious about guarding against bureaucracy, it will build accountability into the budget process by sunsetting Federal spending. Congress needs the opportunity to reexamine what works and what does not. Just because a program has been around for a while does not mean it is a good investment. Step No. 4: Grant responsible employees the authority to make certain decisions--for which they now need approval--unilaterally. Elaborate approvals do little more than slow the company's response time and make it more difficult to serve customers. For the Federal Government, that means moving the concentration of power from Washington back to the States, where it belongs. There is more than just a physical distance between Washington and the rest of the country. There are different priorities outside here as well, and nobody on the other side of the Beltway really believes that Congress can spend the taxpayers' dollars better than local officials can. Our responsibility is to leave the decision making where it can do the most good and speed up the response time to best serve the taxpayers--who are not only the customers of this Government, but its owners as well. ``Keep in mind that no one sets out to create a bureaucracy,'' wrote Mark Stevens. ``But unless you are diligent in protecting it, the bureaucracy will form on its own.'' Of course, that is exactly what happened in Washington. But if we follow the same advice that scores of small businesses have used to pull themselves out of the bureaucratic quagmire--eliminating senseless rules and regulations, downsizing to promote efficiency, evaluating spending decisions, and putting faith, and the dollars to go along with it, in the hands of the States, not Washington--we will shrink the bureaucracy. And while we are doing that, Mr. President, we will expand the people's faith in their Government. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also would like to rise today as a cosponsor of the small business protection amendment to the Regulatory Reform Act.

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for about 7 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, again, I want to say I rise as a strong cosponsor of the small business protection amendment to the Regulatory Reform Act, and as a strong proponent of holding Government accountable to the taxpayers, I believe this amendment would make a good bill even better. I also compliment the Senator from Michigan for all the work he has done in this area. The negotiations that many of us have undertaken on the Regulatory Reform Act have been long and often painful, especially as we witnessed the watering down of rational provisions. The sunset provision has been one of those casualties. But the small business protection amendment would strengthen the provision in the bill which cancels or sunsets regulations as they become obsolete. Excessive Federal regulations and redtape impose an enormous burden on this Nation. Regulations act as hidden taxes which push up prices on goods and services for American households, dampen business investment and, ultimately, kill jobs. What concerns me most, however, is that a large portion of Federal regulations do not have strong scientific merit to back up their enforcement. I am also concerned that we are currently prohibited from even conducting cost-benefit analyses on some of the extensive regulatory measures in this country. How can this Congress make well- informed decisions if we cannot even consider these types of options? More than 2 years ago, as a new Member of Congress, the first sunset amendment I offered was to H.R. 820, and that was the National Competitiveness Act. I mention this because my goal was not to hinder our ability to compete in the international marketplace. On the contrary, with overregulation strangling our competitiveness abroad, my goal was simply to provide a framework for ensuring oversight and accountability and to get agencies to start setting standards to justify the funding that they now receive. After this first sunset amendment, I offered several more to various House appropriations bills, and almost a dozen were passed into law with wide bipartisan support. Let me remind you, Mr. President, that the concept of sunsetting regulations is not new. In fact, President Clinton's Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, offered sunset legislation when he served in the U.S. House of Representatives. So now we have the opportunity with a single piece of legislation to sunset regulations that have outlived their usefulness. As the 1995 Regulatory Reform Act is currently written, regulations would be listed on review schedules published by the agencies. However, a regulation would not be subject to review unless the agency chooses to place it on the review schedule. If the agency does not place a particular regulation on the review schedule, an individual or a small business may petition that agency to do so. But this is not as easy as it sounds. The individual or small business must meet unreasonably high standards--standards so stringent that the average person would have to hire expensive lawyers and consultants just to figure out how to meet that criteria. What the small business protection amendment would do is to require agencies to include on their review schedules any regulation designated for review by the chief counsel for advocacy of the Small Business Administration in concurrence with the OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. This represents an important step toward alleviating the burden of outdated regulations and also ensuring the future health of our economy. Big businesses already have a loud voice in the regulatory process because they have access to resources often out of the reach of small businesses. But small businesses create millions of new jobs every year, and this amendment would allow their voices to be heard as well. Mr. President, I am sure that there is not a single Member of this body who has not been contacted by a constituent from their home State because of some absurd and outmoded regulation. And yet some of my colleagues will argue that strengthening the sunset measure in the Regulatory Reform Act would place an undue burden on the regulatory agencies, who would have to spend a lot more time reviewing and a lot less time regulating. I argue that is what regulators ought to do--that is, review and then retire regulations that are no longer needed and then to fix those that are not working. The fact is that strengthening the sunset provision of the Regulatory Reform Act will have absolutely no impact on regulations which serve a useful and realistic purpose. It will not make our air dirty or our water unclean. It will not pollute our environment or jeopardize our health or our safety. What this amendment will do is to enhance the accountability and oversight that regulators have to the taxpayers of this country--the people who must foot the bill for every rule and requirement imposed by the myriad of regulatory agencies. Establishing a fair procedure by which regulations can be reviewed periodically to ensure and to maintain their effectiveness is just plain common sense. That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Abraham-Dole small business protection amendment, and that is also why I urge my colleagues to give it their support today as well. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this coming Tuesday, the American people will celebrate the Fourth of July. It is a day for parties and parades, fireworks, and family picnics. It is a day for remembering the bedrock of freedom on which this country was built, and how freedom still binds us together. So it is ironic that 1 day later, July 5, we will take action right here on Capitol Hill to clamp down on the very freedoms we embrace on Independence Day. It began on April 19, in Oklahoma City. The reverberations of the bombing at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building were felt across America, but echoed loudly in Washington, DC, home to more Federal buildings--and Federal employees--than any other city in the Nation. And almost immediately, a siege mentality took hold. Here at the Capitol, police took extraordinary steps to protect against the possibility of a terrorist attack. They beefed up patrols around the building, stopped cars and checked trunks, eliminated parking in some areas, increased the sensitivity on the entryway metal detectors, and kept the public away from ground floor windows with yards of yellow tape labeled ``Police Line--Do Not Cross.'' Soon after, the U.S. Treasury Department ordered Pennsylvania Avenue closed to cars and trucks in front of the White House. For the first time in the 195-year history of the Executive Mansion, the people were no longer allowed to drive past the people's house. And now, 1 month after Pennsylvania Avenue was shut down to traffic, police say more drastic measures are needed. A plan will go into effect here on Wednesday, July 5, that will even further limit the people's access to Capitol Hill and those of us who work here on the people's behalf. The Senate Sergeant-at-Arms and the U.S. Capitol Police say that traffic will be restricted or eliminated altogether around the three Senate office buildings. Some parking will be eliminated, too. Streets will be closed with the concrete barriers that have become all-too-common in this city. It will be more tire shredders, not ``welcome'' signs, that will greet visitors. The Capitol Police say they are trying to strike a balance between free access, and the security of the Congress and its visitors. They say the changes I have outlined mean only ``minor traffic disruptions'' and will have ``little impact on the community.'' Mr. President, I have great admiration and respect for the officers and police administrators who work every day--sometimes putting their own lives on the line--to make this a safe and secure place to work and visit. They have and deserve our thanks. But with all due respect to them, there is much more at stake in this decision than simply its physical impact on the community. Whenever we make such bold moves to further separate ourselves from the very people who sent us here and pay our weekly salaries, it has a tremendous impact on the national psyche as well. What it comes down to, Mr. President, is the question of freedom versus security. Is ours a government that can operate openly, in the name of freedom, and still shut itself off from the people, in the name of security? Are we willing to swap one for the other? If we are, then perhaps we should not stop with a few tire shredders and a couple of closed streets. Why do not we just build a fence around the Capitol? That is what the Capitol Hill Police proposed in 1985 in an internal report, at a cost then of $2.8 million. Or better yet, if we really want to make a loud, public statement that ``you cannot mess with the Federal Government,'' we will dig a massive trench around the Capitol. We will fill the moat with water and maybe a pack of alligators, and build a single, drawbridge entrance, where we will station guards armed with spears. And then we will dare the public to visit. We will be secure in our bunker, Mr. President, but for that security, we will be trading away freedom, and we cannot make horse trades with the very principles upon which this Nation was founded. Mr. President, we should also consider the impact of our actions on the taxpayers. The recent security precautions taken at the White House will cost the taxpayers $200,000 for new traffic signals, signs, and pavement markings. The new security arrangements here at the Capitol will come with a price tag to the taxpayers as well, although the costs will not be measured solely by dollars. Where do we stop? There are 8,100 Federal buildings in the United States--do we turn each and every one of them into a fortress? The sad truth is that we can not protect Federal workers by sealing them off from the world. If we tell terrorists that we are not going to let them park car bombs made of fertilizer and fuel oil next to our Federal buildings anymore, they will find another way. And we may just be goading on a desperate kook who wants to prove they can not be stopped by another layer of security. The public does not understand what we are doing. They have vital business in Federal buildings, or they come here as tourists, expecting to be welcomed. But when they see the police, and all they yellow tape, and the signs that say ``Do Not Enter,'' they wonder what kind of message we are trying to get across. I have heard their comments when they look down an empty stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue that used to be open to cars. I know what they whisper when they visit and walk through the metal detectors. ``It is a shame,'' they are saying. And they do not like it. We have gone too far. Washington should be a place where visitors feel secure, but by turning it into a fortress, we are sacrificing freedom for security, and making a city of such beauty and such history something dirty. We can put in more concrete barriers and try to camouflage them with flowers, but in the words of one newspaper columnist, it is like putting lipstick on a goat. It is ugly, and fear is ugly. Democracy should be about building bridges, not building walls. In Washington, we have become too adept at building walls. And every time a wall goes up, we knock freedom down another notch. Let us seriously consider what we're doing, and what security we're willing to give up in order to live in a democracy. If in the end it comes down to a question of security or freedom, this Senator will always choose freedom, Mr. President. And I believe the American people will, too. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, talking about the budget, this historic budget is a budget unlike any other approved by Congress in more than a quarter of a century because, not only does it balance the budget within 7 years without raising taxes, it actually cuts taxes for middle-class Americans. It marks the first time since 1969 that Congress has committed itself to a balanced budget, and reflects the change demanded by the voters in November: Get government off our backs and out of our back pockets. Mr. President, our budget resolution provides $245 billion in tax relief, making it the largest tax refund in history. I am proud that the centerpiece of the tax relief package will be the $500 per-child tax credit originally proposed by me and my very good friend from Indiana, Senator Coats, in our families-first legislation, and by Representative Tim Hutchinson in the House. Along with my freshman colleague, Senator Abraham, and the leadership of Senator Dole, we have ensured that this Senate goes on record supporting middle-class tax relief, and incentives to stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and economic growth. And, Mr. President, this tax relief could not have come at a better time. Government has become a looming presence in the lives of the American people, mostly through the encouragement of Congress. Each year, the people are asked to turn more and more responsibilities over to the Federal Government--for Government regulation, for Government support. From the time they get up in the morning till the time they go to bed at night, there are very few aspects of daily American life that are not touched by the hand of government. So government has been forced to grow just to keep up. Consider that government spending at the Federal State, and local levels has jumped from less than 12 percent of national income in the 1930's to more than 42 percent today. And the burden for keeping these ever-ballooning bureaucracies in operation has fallen on the taxpayers, of course--through more and higher taxes. As a sign of just how big the Federal Government has grown--and how the number of tax dollars sent to Washington have grown right along with it--look what has happened to the IRS. Today, it has an annual operating budget in excess of $7.5 billion. If it were a private company, its gross receipts--more than $1 trillion--would put it at the top of the Fortune 500 list. All that--just by processing tax dollars. Most middle-class American families pay more in Federal taxes than they spend for food, clothing, and shelter combined. Families with children are now the lowest after-tax income group in America--below elderly households, below single persons, below families without children. Since 1948, when Americans paid just 22 cents per dollar of their personal income in taxes, the Gallup organization has asked Americans what they think about the taxes they pay. That first year, 57 percent of the people said yes, taxes are too high. Today, nearly 50 cents of every dollar earned by middle-class Americans goes to taxes of some sort--and 67 percent of the people say they're handing over too much of their own money to the Federal Government. They might feel differently if they were getting a fair return on then investment. But Americans see their hard-earned dollars being wasted by the Federal Government. They look at the services they are getting in return and they feel like they are being taken to the cleaners. The 1993 tax bill offered by President Clinton did not help, either. As the largest tax increase in American history, it hit middle-class Americans right where it hurt the most--their wallets. The President's 1993 tax hike actually increased their tax burden, making it more difficult for the middle class to care for themselves and their children. And I remind you--not a single Republican voted for it. The tax burden has become so heavy in my home State of Minnesota that it took until May 14 this year--134 days into 1995--for us to finally reach Tax Freedom Day. That is the day when Minnesotans are no longer working just to pay off taxes, and can finally begin working for themselves. Nearly 20 weeks, over 800 hours on the job just to pay Uncle Sam and his cousins at the State level. In order to pay all these taxes, Americans are spending more time on the job. Within the past three decades, the average American has added about 160 hours annually to their work schedule. That is about 4 extra weeks of work a year. They are overworked, overstressed, and they are moonlighting more than ever before. In 1995, one in six Americans holds more than one job. One out of every three is regularly working on weekends and evenings. And it is not because they necessarily want to--it is because they must. A significant number of families are relying on that second job just to pull themselves above the poverty line and meet their annual tax obligations. The majority of families who have reached a middle-class standard of living are families relying on two incomes. They are still pursuing the American dream, but the ever-increasing tax burden keeps pushing it out of reach. Imagine what those longer work hours are doing to the family. Or better yet, listen to taxpayers like Natalie Latzska-Wolstad of Coon Rapids, MN, who struggle with the demands of family life, the job, and the Government--while pursuing their own version of the American Dream. I went to the floor of the Senate last month to talk about Natalie and her family, after she wrote me a moving letter about the enormous tax burden her family is forced to bear. It hit home for Natalie after she and her husband met with their realtor, only to learn that they simply could not afford to purchase a new home on their own. Let me quote just a few paragraphs from Natalie's letter: ``I have finally reached the point of complete frustration and anger over the amount of taxes being deducted from my check each month,'' she wrote. When we got home that evening my husband and I sat down with our checkbook and our bills and tried to determine what we were doing wrong. After taking everything into consideration we determined that we weren't spending our money foolishly. The only real problem we found was when we looked at our paycheck stubs and actually realized how much of our income was going to pay for taxes. It saddens me to think of how hard my husband and I work and how much time we have to spend away from our daughter to be at work, and still we cannot reach the American dream. This is a disturbing letter, and I am even more troubled knowing it is just one of hundreds I have received from across the country. I know you have heard some Senator on the floor say: Americans do not want tax relief. I do not know who they are talking to, or who is writing them letters. But I hear something completely different from the people that I get letters from. Here is another example. From California: Our families desperately need tax relief, and our Government needs to stop spending so wastefully. From Georgia: I want to personally thank you for fighting for tax relief for families. Your efforts do not go unnoticed. From Illinois: We are a one-paycheck family struggling to keep our heads above water. Two of our three children are in a private school. The burden of paying for the public and private school 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 Kentucky: We realize you are fighting a tough battle and we fully support you on this issue. Keep fighting! From Oklahoma: I want to let you know there are a lot of us middle-income heads of households who support you firmly. And finally from Pennsylvania: Please continue to keep the pro-family community in mind. The family, its strength, is what keeps this nation strong. Those are strong words, Mr. President, from people who know what they are talking about. As somebody once told me, those who say, We don't need a tax cut probably do not pay taxes. Contrary to 40 years of conventional wisdom in Washington, American families are better equipped and better able than the Federal Government to spend their own dollars. And they need the tax relief offered in the budget resolution more than ever. When we first introduced the idea of family tax relief and the $500 per-child tax credit in 1993, our arguments were simple: taxes were too high, the burden of tax increases fell disproportionately on the middle-class, and big government was forcing more workers out of the working class and into the welfare class. Today, those same problems remain, and the arguments for tax relief have not changed, either. The big difference, however, is that this year, with this Congress--with this budget resolution--we are finally doing something about it. The $500 per-child tax credit takes money out of the hands of the Washington bureaucrats and leaves it in the hands of the taxpayers. It would return $25 billion annually to families across America, $500 million to my Minnesota constituents alone. And it is truly a tax break for the middle class. We will ensure that 9 out of every 10 dollars of this tax relief go to families making less than $100,000. That is not the wealthy, Mr. President. That is middle-class America. The Clinton administration and the Treasury Department have tried to refute our tax relief numbers. Without dwelling on the inherent bias in asking the President's own Treasury Department to examine a Republican budget plan, let me just say that our budget figures are based on numbers provided by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax Committees. Members of the President's own party have called on him to use CBO numbers--numbers which clearly show middle-class taxpayers benefit most from our tax relief. Along with tax relief, the other important aspect of the budget resolution is that we have balanced the budget. For decades, Congress has offered up budgets which raised taxes, sent government spending spiraling out of control, and created massive deficits. They built up a national debt of nearly $5 trillion because Congress thrives on spending other people's money. But who gets stuck with the bill? Not this generation. No, we are passing this debt on to our kids and grandkids. Even the Clinton administration, despite all its talk about shrinking the deficit, has washed its hands of the problem. Under both of the President's budget plans, the deficit would increase from $177 billion this year to well over $200 billion through the next decade, and add another $1.5 trillion to the national debt. When the voters ushered in a new political reality in November, they soundly rejected business as usual in Washington. They looked to the Republicans for an alternative, for a budget that could turn back 40 years of spending mentality and the belief that ``money will fix everything, especially if it's your money and Washington can spend it.'' Today, we have delivered. We crafted a document the naysayers said could never be achieved--a resolution that brings the budget into balance by the year 2002--and it is proof that we are serious about living up to our pledge. And we have done it without slashing Federal spending, without putting children, seniors, and the disadvantaged at risk. Most of our savings are achieved by slowing the growth of Government. Will there need to be some sacrifices? Yes, although the Government will have to sacrifice more than the people will. Will belts need to be tightened? Yes. But a belt that is not tightened today may become a noose tomorrow, a noose around the necks of our children and grandchildren. As I hear over and over from Minnesotans: The American people are willing to make those sacrifices--if they believe their Government is serious about making change. At long last, America has a Congress that is serious. Mr. President, what we do with this budget resolution, we are doing for the taxpayers who silently foot the Government's bills--the average men and women who get up every morning, send their kids to school, go to work, maybe at more than one job, and pay their taxes every year. They are the forgotten middle-class families, the people who have for too long borne the burden of Federal overspending. The taxpayer have watched their money vanish and then reappear in the form of some lavish Federal program which benefits few but the bureaucrats themselves. Mr. President, is it fair to ask these middle-class Americans to endure greater economic hardships if we continue to do nothing? Is it fair to expect middle-class Americans to endure greater economic hardships if we continue to do nothing? Is it fair to expect middle-class Americans to do without, when their Government has never had to, if we continue to do nothing? Is it fair to enslave the children of middle-class America with our debts if we continue to do nothing? If each Senator in this Chamber asks themselves those very questions, the budget resolution will pass and it will be an overwhelming victory--a victory not for this Congress, but a victory for the people. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAMS. Yes, go ahead.

Mr. GRAMS. No more than 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to voice my strong support for the budget conference report, which I believe is a historic document that looks forward and not back; one that promises freedom, not Government servitude; and one that delivers hope and not despair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. The SEC would be able to bring the suits.

Mr. GRAMS. I think as you noted in your colloquy, there have been arguments on both sides. And in weighing the differences in those two arguments, you might agree with the group that you have just mentioned. But I also agreed with some of the others and agree that the 1 and 3 still provides adequate protection.

Mr. GRAMS. I wanted to make one note, that all these what we would consider frivolous lawsuits are not filed within hours, but some wait 3 to 5 years, requiring businesses to produce even more records, which would make it even more expensive to debate or fight this in court.

Mr. GRAMS. I was talking with my staff, and that is according to the SEC and, I guess, also the Judicial Conference begs to differ with the numbers that the Senator from Nevada presented. I also wanted to comment on what the Senator from Connecticut had mentioned in talking about the new technologies and the speed with which things are done and the complexity of the programs. That also gives an advantage to those who are able to find fault, or to find fraud, or to find these problems and have a real advantage then in trying to file these claims within a year or within the 3 years. So the technology has probably worked in favor of those, as well as against them. And this timetable, if I am not mistaken, was adopted in 1934, and has served those years since. That would also provide adequate time. The main thing is that it would weed out the frivolous lawsuits and, as the Senator from New York pointed out, even if these time periods elapse and real fraud is found, they can still be rectified in the courts.

Mr. GRAMS. Well, I hate to differ, but the statistics, according to some of the research that we have done, do not correspond with the statistics that the Senator from Nevada has produced. So we still maintain that the 1 and 3----

Mr. GRAMS. Yes.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada. In Lampf versus Gilbertson, the U.S. Supreme Court established the period of time in which attorneys may file claims under the implied right of action found in 10b-5, and that was 1 year after the plaintiff knew of the alleged violation and 3 years after the alleged violation occurred. While critics of this legislation have seized upon the statute of limitations as a wedge to defeat this important reform measure, they have failed to present a convincing case of why this period should be extended. In the years since the Lampf decision, we have not seen a surge in the number of actions dismissed because of the limitation period. Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite conclusion. Since the Lampf decision, we have witnessed an increase in the number of complex claims filed within days, even hours, after a movement in the market. Plaintiffs with meritorious claims have more than enough time to file their claims, but, unfortunately, so do strike suit attorneys. There are a number of reasons, however, why the current statute of limitations should be preserved. For example, a longer period of limitations makes it more difficult for innocent defendants to defend themselves in court. As a result, strike suit attorneys will have an easier time forcing these defendants into exorbitant settlements. These settlements, by the way, rarely benefit any real injured class of investors. They simply go to enrich an attorney and, worse, the result of these settlements are higher prices for consumers, lost jobs for workers, and a weaker economy. In other words, consumers lose, it is the workers who lose, victims of real valid securities fraud actions lose--everyone loses, again, except for the attorneys. S. 240 is designed to reverse this trend, to weed out the frivolous litigation that robs consumers of their hard-earned dollars, to make it easier for innocent parties to defend themselves against meritless charges, to free our economy from the litigation bonanza that has made us less competitive in the global marketplace. If the Senate adopts this amendment, it will do the opposite, and we will do a major disservice to the people we represent. Again, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. I will yield to the Senator from Nevada for a question.

Mr. GRAMS. Yes.

Mr. GRAMS. I was just advised that the plaintiff can recover from the disgorgement fund if this were the case.

Mr. GRAMS. Sometimes all the cleverness is not on behalf of the defendant but on behalf of the plaintiff who is bringing the suit. This is basically the attorney. So I believe that with the speed and technology, this always can be a debate or an argument of who benefits most from that. But I do believe that in the far majority of the cases, the plaintiff has adequate time, and in the serious cases where real fraud has been perpetrated by such a company, would always have an opportunity, if I am not mistaken, for the SEC to bring legal action.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding Minnesotan who has been chosen as the American Optometric Association's 1995 ``Optometrist of the Year.'' A resident of Brainerd, MI, Dr. Kerry Beebe was selected from more than 27,000 doctors for his significant contributions to the discipline of optometry. Since 1985, Dr. Beebe has taken an active role in promoting the agenda of Minnesota's Optometric Association's legislative steering committee by spending countless hours lobbying, fundraising and speaking on issues important to optometry and the patients it serves. In addition, Dr. Beebe has participated in a number of community service activities including serving as a member of the Brainerd Area Chamber of Commerce, Brainerd Lions Club, Brainerd Jaycees, Ducks Unlimited, and as an advisory board member to the Kingwood Good Samaritan Nursing Home. In 1992, Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson appointed Dr. Beebe to the Rural Health Advisory Commission which was established to facilitate the implementation of health care reform on a regional basis. He was also appointed by the Minnesota Commissioner of Health to serve on the universal standard benefit set committee to recommend a benefit set of services. I would like to quote from Dr. Beebe's hometown paper, the Brainerd Daily Dispatch: He has to be one of, if not the most patient, understanding and courteous business/non-business persons I have encountered. . . . During all the years I have dealt with Dr. Beebe, he has never failed in his friendly, courteous and patient manner.'' Mr. President, I hope that our Senate colleagues will join me in congratulating one of America's outstanding health care providers. Dr. Beebe has made Minnesota proud and today, Dr. Beebe is making America proud.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a great Minnesotan--former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Warren Burger, who passed away yesterday. Warren Burger was a native of St. Paul, MN. He got is first taste of law taking night classes at the University of Minnesota while working during the day selling insurance. Warren Burger later received his law degree from the old St. Paul College of Law. In his early career, he never gave much thought to pursuing a career on the bench, one time telling friends, ``I never had a passion to be a judge.'' But he accepted the challenge when, as an assistant attorney general in the Justice Department, President Eisenhower offered him a seat on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Thirteen years later, President Nixon elevated him to the High Court. As Chief Justice for 17 years, Warren Burger lead the Court through a tumultuous period in American history--first Vietnam, and later Watergate. The Burger Court could be tough, and the Chief Justice's own law and order reputation was well deserved, but Warren Burger's judicial opinions were fair and often reflected his conservative Midwestern upbringing. Fortunately, his legacy did not end with his retirement from the bench in 1986. Warren Burger continued his crusade to educate the public about the Constitution and the courts. And he never forgot his Minnesota roots. Returning home often, he would stop by his alma mater, now called the William Mitchell College of Law, to share his years of knowledge and experience with the students and judges of tomorrow. Mr. President, the Nation has lost a great leader, and Minnesota has lost a great friend. I join my colleagues in expressing our deepest sympathies to the family of Chief Justice Warren Burger.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to express my strong support for S. 955, the Advanced Medical Devices Access Assurance Act, introduced by Senator Hatch. I believe enactment of this legislation will correct a problem facing many of Minnesota's medical device manufacturers, physicians, and academic medical centers. The U.S. medical device industry is recognized throughout the world for the unsurpassed quality of its products and innovative technologies which have positioned us as the world's leader in medical device technology. If we do not address Medicare's failure to reimburse for investigational medical devices involved in clinical trials, we will lose this position. Large and small medical device manufacturers, many of which are located in my home State of Minnesota, are aggressively developing new devices every day. The future of these manufacturers is dependent on their ability to bring these technologies to the market through clinical trials and the FDA approval process. Unfortunately, today, these companies are unable to conduct clinical trials because of the fear and uncertainty surrounding HCFA's reimbursement policy. By ignoring the benefits of medical device clinical trials, HCFA's policy will increase hospital stays, increase health care costs, and increase mortality rates. Each day that we delay reform efforts, doctors continue to be denied the opportunity for needed training, medical device companies continue to move their technologies and jobs overseas, and senior citizens continue to be denied access to the latest, most innovative medical technology. America's medical technology community deserves better and most importantly, America's senior citizens deserve better. We can no longer allow HCFA to ignore this pending crisis and as chairman of the Senate medical technology caucus, I look forward to working with Senator Hatch to make this legislation a top priority in the Senate.