Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a short colloquy with the Senator from Rhode Island, the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the manager of this bill. Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment which would broaden the definition of like-kind property that would allow affected landowners to defer the capital gains tax after the forced sale of property which is taken for use in various infrastructure projects. I simply do not believe it is fair to expect property owners who do not wish to sell their property to be unable to defer their capital gains tax if they are not able to reinvest the amount of the gain in an expanded like-kind property. It is my desire to work with you in your capacity as a member of the Finance Committee to achieve a broader definition of like-kind property. I have discussed this matter with the Finance Committee staff. However, I would respectfully ask your assistance in ensuring that the Finance Committee will examine this issue when it considers reconciliation this year. If that is possible, I would be pleased to withdraw my amendment from consideration.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 240, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. As we all know, the United States is facing a litigation crisis. Piles of new and often frivolous lawsuits are being filed every day in our Nation's courtrooms, bottling up our judicial system and crowding out those suits which have merit and demand justice. Already, the Senate has addressed the problems in our product liability laws and debated the issue of medical malpractice reform. But few areas of our tort system deserve and require as comprehensive a review as the field of securities litigation. Let me briefly describe the problem. For years, a small number of attorneys have made it their life's work to bring class-action lawsuits against companies whose stock values--for one reason or another--have fallen. These so-called strike suits are rarely filed with any evidence of fraud or wrongdoing--in fact, they are often filed simply with the knowledge that the value of a stock has dropped. This is possible because of the implied right of action developed by the courts under rule 10(b)-5 of the Securities Act of 1934. Because Congress has failed to limit this right of action through statute, it is relatively simple for attorneys to file frivolous cases and harass defendants under these judge-made rules. Even worse, these attorneys rarely serve any real injured class of investors. Instead, they use professional plaintiffs who buy nominal amounts of stock, simply to serve as the pawns of an expensive chess match. Due to the costly array of litigation expenses, such as extensive discovery, defendants will often choose to settle cases, rather than bring them to a final judgment in court. In addition, under joint and several liability, plaintiffs' attorneys can bring secondary defendants, such as accountants, directors, and others, into these cases and force them to settle as well. These settlements are often too small to benefit the alleged class of injured investors. But they are not too small to make a healthy living for an attorney who is motivated solely by profit, not justice. To call this the practice of law would be inaccurate. It is more appropriately called legal blackmail or extortion, and it is happening every day, at the expense of job providers, workers, and consumers. S. 240 addresses this problem by placing some important limitations on the implied right of action in rule 10(b)-5. By helping put the brakes on the attorneys' race to the courthouse, this legislation would make it easier for defendants to protect themselves from frivolous ``strike'' suits, encourage voluntary disclosure of information from issuers of stock to potential investors, and reduce the cost of raising capital which is so necessary for jobs creation. It includes a number of important provisions, including tougher pleading requirements for securities fraud actions, mandatory sanctions for attorneys who file needless litigation, and restrictions on windfall recoveries for plaintiffs who profit from a rebound in the market after an alleged fraud. I am also pleased that S. 240 reforms the rules governing secondary defendants. This measure establishes a two-tiered system which allows most parties to be held proportionately liable only for the percentage of damages attributable to their actions; in other words, it puts an end to the practice of ``deep pockets'' litigation. Mr. President, this legislation is not a perfect bill. There are many of us who believe it should do more. [[Page S 8936]] We could, for example, have a stronger safe harbor protection for forward-looking statements or a ``loser pays'' provisions similar to the bill passed by the House. Today, however, we cannot let the perfect be the envy of the good. Likewise, there will be attempts made to weaken this bill--efforts which I urge my colleagues to reject. In particular, I hope this body will resist any attempt to extend the statute of limitations already found in law. If our purpose is to reduce frivolous litigation and protect consumers from higher prices, any such effort must be rejected. There are some critics of the bill who suggest that this legislation is bad for the average American. Well, Mr. President, tell that to the innocent defendant who's forced to settle for millions of dollars simply because of one crafty lawyer, tell it to the worker who was laid off because his employer had to pay attorneys' fees instead of his salary, tell it to the consumer who has to pay higher prices for everyday products simply because of the cost of frivolous litigation. And most importantly, tell it to the hard-working, honest attorneys who watch the public image of their profession being stomped into the ground by a few quick change artists. They are the ones who suffer because of the abuses in our current system. They are the ones who need our help. By voting for this legislation, we will take an important step forward in helping reduce the cost of frivolous litigation, litigation which robs job providers the opportunity to buy new equipment for plant safety, provide higher pay and better benefits for employees, and to create new jobs. And that hurts average, hard-working, middle-class Americans--my kids and yours. For their sake--in the name of justice--we must pass this important measure to fix our badly broken tort system. I, tonight, urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and to vote for S. 240. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the time and effort the majority leader has put into this bill. Mr. President, during my campaign for the Senate, I promised the people of Minnesota I will do everything that I can do to get government off their backs and out of their back pockets. I told them my fight for them was to turn legislation like my families first plan, and its $500 per child tax credit and economic growth incentives, into law. I believe that this tax credit should be available starting next year for all children under age 18. Today, I am pleased that the U.S. Senate has taken the first step to provide families with the tax relief they want and deserve. The budget resolution reported out of the Budget Committee included a substantial fiscal dividend which may have been used for family tax relief. The Grams-Abraham amendment guarantees that the dividend will be used for family tax relief. Mr. Leader, I would like you to clarify the phrase ``tax relief.''

Mr. GRAMS. Also, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I would like to ask if spousal IRA's would be included in the definition of ``family tax relief''?

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator very much. And I want to thank him very much for giving me the time on this amendment, and also give a lot of credit to the Senator from Texas for bringing this amendment to the floor. Mr. President, we have heard strong and passionate statements from my colleagues on the subject of the $500 per-child tax credit and other tax reductions. But there is one thing we have not heard. We have not heard from the people themselves, those who would benefit most from tax relief, those who pay the bills--that is, the middle- class Americans who work every day--and a lot of nights and weekends, too--just trying to make a better life for themselves, their children, their families. And they do it at the same time they are paying more and more taxes to the Federal Government. Who is speaking up for them? Who is speaking up for the taxpayers? As their elected representatives, it is supposed to be us. But sometimes I am not so sure we are. November was only 6 months ago, but in a city where the headline- making political promises of yesterday too often end up lining the bottom of the bird cage, the message of November already seems to have been forgotten by many of us in the Senate. And so, if not us, who is speaking up for the taxpayers? Believe me, Mr. President, they may not be here to speak for themselves, but they have a voice in this debate, and they have a right to be heard today. Fortunately, the taxpayers in my State of Minnesota are prolific letter-writers. And, thanks to their letters, some of which I have brought with me to the floor, they will be heard today. And this is just a very small sample but a representation of what I have received in the mail. Listen carefully--their thoughtful words reflect a deep dissatisfaction with the status quo in Washington. Listen to Ralph Krasky of Minneapolis: We are just being killed in taxes. We both work and all we do is save for April 15. Let us keep what we make. After all, it is not the government's money. It is our money. Or listen to Elaine Haataja, 53 years old and living in Menagha. She lost her husband to cancer a year ago: I am very angry at our Federal and State tax system. I had no choice but to go to work for $5 an hour to support myself and keep up the taxes and insurance on my house and car. ``I receive $700 a month from my husband's pension, which isn't enough a month to pay utilities and insurance plus the upkeep on the house and my old car. And now I have to pay $1,100 for Federal and State taxes. The frustration is real, Mr. President, in Minneapolis, in Menagha, and every town in between. People feel as if their own Government has let them down; that somehow Government has gotten off the right track. ``I urge you to continue to cut taxes and cut spending and cut the Federal bureaucracy,'' writes Ralph Grant of Rockford, MN. ``There is more than enough waste and fraud and pork and duplication in the Federal budget to sustain a severe reduction without affecting any necessary and required services.'' Minnetrista residents Kathy and Gary Hejna agree: We believe this country was built with hard work and sacrifice, not sympathy and handouts. We also believe that we can spend this money more effectively than the Government, who has only succeeded in creating a permanent, dependent welfare class with our money over the last 40 years. Any bill that takes money away from the Government and gives it to the families, the basic unit of society, can only benefit everyone in this country. With seven children, Kathy and Gary would receive a tax credit of $3,500 every year under the Gramm amendment. Think what a difference an extra $3,500 could mean for a family. It could mean health insurance, a special education for a gifted child, or simple necessities like groceries and clothing. Think how the $500 per-child tax credit could strengthen the American family. Kathleen and William Bart of Roseville have given it a lot of thought. ``A $500 Federal tax credit for each dependent is not a Federal hand-out,'' they write, ``but would allow parents to keep more of the money that they make and to use it to care for their own children. ``A $500 Federal tax credit for each dependent would unquestionably strengthen many families--especially middle-class and economically- disadvantaged families.'' Lori Brandt, who lives in Plymouth, MN, has thought about it, too. ``Families desperately need a break today,'' she says, ``and tax relief is long overdue.'' From Duluth came this letter by Justin Black. ``So many families starting out these days are as poor as dirt because they have to pay so much taxes when they haven't had the time to barely start their lives. ``They need a break like this tax bill so they can afford to raise a healthy family. Remember: they're the hope for the next generation and they need to have a strong family life to take over where the last generation left off.'' ``My husband, Jay, is an executive with a small manufacturing business and I am a mother and homemaker, as well as teacher to our two small children,'' says Patty Meacham of Audubon, MN, in her letter to my office. ``We are helping to support Jay's 69-year-old-mother, because we don't feel the government should be responsible for every person within our borders. [[Page S7165]] ``Tax cuts would enable us to do much more Grandma, and perhaps she could get off the rolls of people accepting rent assistance. ``It is no source of pride for us that she has to go to a government agency for help, but how can we do what is right for her, when we are so greatly strapped by the tax burden placed upon us?'' A young couple from Coon Rapids tried to but a new home to fulfill the American dream, only to learn after meeting with their realtor that they simply could not afford to do it on their own. ``I have finally reached the point of complete frustration and anger over the amount of taxes being deducted from my check each month,'' said their letter. ``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 we still cannot `reach the American dream.''' The $500 per-child tax credit would help families like Natalie's realize their dreams. And Minnesotans know it will help the economy, too. David Clark, a taxpayer from Eden Prairie writes: ``Taxation is an awesome burden in the U.S. today, and it is sucking away resources from the economy that could be used to create jobs and opportunities for everyone, including the poor. ``I urge you to use the new Republican majority to enact the legislation needed to get the Government off our backs.'' Walter Wilder, a doctor from Edina, writes: ``Tax cuts will help to balance the budget by stimulating growth, bringing in more income, including from the high-income people.'' And J. Randy Brown of Oakdale says: ``I agree with your position that tax cuts are also a necessary part of the overall budget solution. Reduced taxes will result in renewed growth, job-creating, and the result of that would be increased revenues.'' Mr. President, if it were up to the American people, we would have tax relief, and the vote would not even be close. The House heard the people and passed its budget last week, with the $500 per-child tax credit as its centerpiece. But now it is our turn. The American people are not sure we are up to the task. And I am afraid they may be right. ``I just finished my '94 taxes. What a disappointment,'' writes Tim Hulst of New Hope. ``The government can't seem to get enough of my money. Last year, I worked two jobs--seven days per week--and my wife worked full time to try and support ourselves and three children. ``After all we've paid in, we still owe $1,000 more. Please convince your fellow Senators how important it is to cut taxes. I wonder sometimes if the Republicans in the Senate really get it.'' Dean Fairbrother of Minneapolis has the same concerns. ``The status- quo, too-cautious approach exemplified by many of the senior members of the Republican Senate caucus is unacceptable. Keep pushing for family tax relief,'' he urged. ``Ignore the tired lamentations coming from the Old Bulls. They are wrong--you, me, and the majority of Americans pleading for such relief are dead right.'' The letter-writer who leveled the harshest criticism at this Chamber is Folkert Breitsma of Maple Grove, who writes: ``It is a disgrace to see billions of our money squandered by politicians who are out of touch with real life and have the audacity to say that the national government can be entrusted with the money-- that they know what is good for us. ``I have watched the Senate stonewall most of the initiatives brought forth by the House. It is defended by the Senators as being `more deliberate' and `take time to study the initiatives.' ``However it is promoted, I see it as stonewalling by a group of people that do not have a clear vision of what they want to achieve and have the arrogance to claim they know what is best for the country.'' Those are strong words--not my words, but words in which I find a good deal of truth. But there is hope, Mr. President--the hope offered by the $500 per- child tax credit we debate today. Mr. President, look what the $500 per-child tax credit could do for the Minnesotans who wrote asking for our help: We would return $1.4 million to the people of Wadena County, home of Elaine Haataja; we would return $48.7 million to the people of Ramsey County, home of the Bart Family; $3 million to Becker County, home of the Meacham Family; $20.8 million to Washington County, home of the Browns; and $101.5 million would be returned to Hennepin County, which the Brandts, the Breitsmas, the Kraskys, the Hulsts, and the Fairbrothers call home. By passing the $500 per-child tax credit, we would return $500 million to Minnesota families--$25 billion annually to families across America. We have heard what the people have to say. I think the question, again, is who is speaking up for the taxpayers? As I close, Mr. President, I want to remark that the senior Senator from Nebraska said a few moments ago the tax cut would more deeply increase the pain to balance the budget. The pain of the tax burden on this country's families is growing more and more, and they are demanding and asking for tax relief. I strongly urge my colleagues to support and adopt the Gramm amendment.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, we have no one on our side requesting time at this particular moment so I would like to yield the floor back to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, looking for leadership on the budget from the opposition these days is a little like playing ``Where's Waldo?'' If you look long and hard, you may eventually spot it, but there is not much there and it is certainly not easy to find. This important debate over this year's budget resolution very clearly demonstrates my point. For years, the Democrats have passed budgets which increased taxes, increased spending, and gave us the massive deficits which have dragged this Nation nearly $5 trillion in debt. In 1993, President Clinton continued that trend, and even went a stip further. His budget contained the largest tax increase in history, $275 billion, and spending increases, and more deficits. But the Democrats praised it up and down. ``It is going to take this country in the correct direction, in a good direction, in the right direction,'' said one of my Democrat colleagues. Over and over again, the President and the Democrats in Congress challenged Republicans to offer up an alternative. Listen to the words of my good colleague, Mrs. Boxer, the junior Senator from California: So I say to my fellow Republicans: Where is your budget? Show it to us. I want to see it. Don't give me amendments that do something here and there, because that is not constructive. We delivered an alternative budget--one which reduced the deficit through spending cuts, not tax increases. I, in fact, drafted an alternative of my own--Families First--which I introduced in the House and which was carried here in the Senate by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Coats of Indiana. Our budget not only cut spending, it cut taxes for families and moved the Federal Government in an entirely new direction. Away from the Washington Beltway, Families First was praised by the taxpayers. But here on Capitol Hill, with the Democratic majority in charge, it never had a chance. In August 1993, under the leadership of the President and a Democrat House and Senate, the largest tax increase was passed into law. Now the tables are turned. Under the guidance of our distinguished budget chairman, Republicans have offered up an historic plan which would balance the budget within the next 7 years. I am proud of the work of the Budget Committee. Yet, those same Democrats of 1993 who called so loudly for a Republican budget alternative, have failed to offer up any alternative of their own this time around, just a lot of little amendments that do something here and there. In fact, the only Democrat to offer up an alternative is President Clinton, and he is required to do that by law. But the President's budget was so far from what the people called for in November that not one Senator voted for it--Democrat or Republican. That is some serious back-peddling. Two years after passing the largest tax increase in history--and boasting they reduced the deficit without a single Republican vote--Senate Democrats joined Republicans in rejecting the President's fiscal policies by a vote of 99 to 0. Unlike Mr. Domenici's balanced budget, the President's budget would never balance. In fact, his budget plan calls for another $1.2 trillion in deficit spending over the next 5 years. Under the President's budget, the deficit will continue to rise every year, until it reaches nearly $300 billion in the year 2000. Kings can abdicate their thrones, generals can wave the white flag of surrender, a chess player who gets backed into a corner can forfeit the game, but the President of the United States is not supposed to just throw in the towel when the going gets a little rough. Times have changed. So if President Clinton is not serious about reducing the deficit and balancing the budget, I ask the Democrats here in the Senate the very same question they asked us 2 years ago, using their very own words: ``Where is your budget? Show it to us. I want to see it.'' In 1993, Republicans did put up alternative budgets that we did support and that we did vote for. But it is not the case this year. The distinguished Democrat leader says he accepts the goal of producing a balanced budget by 2002. But he is not willing to actually do anything about it, because, and I quote, ``We don't have the votes, so there's no point for us to lay out a comprehensive substitute.'' We did not have the votes in 1993. But we did lay out a comprehensive substitute alternative budget. Well, I certainly hope we can count on his vote for Mr. Domenici's balanced budget. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: how do you plan to improve, preserve, and protect the Medicare Program from going bankrupt, as it would under the President's plan? If you are intent on spending as wildly as you have in the past, how do you plan to balance the budget within 7 years? With new taxes? If so, which taxes are you going to raise? The people have a right to know. Mr. President, the Democrats may find that it is easy to complain about the Republican's budget, but you cannot beat something with nothing. And that is what the Democrats have given us: nothing. It is clear, Mr. President, that they do not want to tell us how they are going to balance the budget without tax increases, because they have absolutely no intention of ever doing it. So I make one suggestion to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Being in the minority does not give you license to simply gripe and complain. It does not free you from the responsibility of representing your constituents. If you vote no on the budget resolution, then you had better find something on which you can vote yes for. We did it in 1993. Or else, the voters will have every reason to vote no themselves when you turn to them in November. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. As I said, Mr. President, I have no one on this side who requests time at this moment, so I will yield the floor back to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize the efforts of the many individuals who are participating in the fourth White House Conference on Aging. In particular, I would like to give special recognition to the delegates from my State of Minnesota. Over the last 2 years, I have had the opportunity to work with and listen to many of Minnesota's senior citizens about issues of great concern to them such as ensuring the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, expanding the highly successful Medicare Select health care program to all senior citizens and repealing the Clinton administration's seniors-only tax. [[Page S7132]] In addition, many seniors have expressed the frustration with the seniors' earnings limit which unfairly penalizes senior citizens by reducing their Social Security benefits if they continue working beyond retirement age and earn over $11,160. Last year, as a member of the 103d Congress, I nominated John Pribyl as the delegate from Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District. John has spent over 20 years helping to develop service opportunities for senior citizens. As director of the Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota's Senior Companion Program and Foster Grandparent Program, John Pribyl has worked tirelessly to promote seniors as a valuable resource with talent and experiences to share with others. I also nominated Joanne Demko of Minneapolis, who has worked in aging services for 15 years. She currently serves as director of the Volunteers of America Anoka/Hennepin Senior Dining and Home Delivered Meals Programs. In addition to these duties, Demko is an active member of the Minnesota Gerontological Society, Minnesota Minority Elders Coalition, and previously served as president of the Minnesota Nutrition Directors Association. Mr. President, these two individuals have devoted a significant portion of their lives improving the opportunities for Minnesota senior citizens. Joanne Demko and John Pribyl stand out as leaders in their communities who have the vision, the compassion, and the determination to protect the great state of Minnesota. Mr. President, it is a distinct honor for me to have such qualified champions of seniors' issues advocating the needs of older Americans. Mr. President, I ask that there be printed in the Record a complete list of Minnesota's delegates to the White House Conference on Aging and again, congratulate these individuals for their commitment to these important issues. Delegates to the White House Conference on Aging The list follows: David E. Meillier. Elva D. Walker. Gretchen Dee. Marvel Pratke. Helen Johnston. Madelyn Reiter. Roger Banks. Eli Hunt. Caralyn Radatz. Garritt Van Hunnik. Rosalie Tassoni. Frank R. Johnson. Virginia Smith. David Janovy. Annabel Greseth. Joanna Demko. Wayne Willman. Miriam B. Seltzer. Edith Brady. Eric G. Tangalos. Margaret Christenson. Pegeen Tillman. Jim Varpness. Dean Fenner. Wayne Takeshita. Carolyn Kelly Tasker. Donna Walberg. Marjorie Jamieson. Bob Meiches, M.D. Merredith Hart. Maureen Acosta. Al Sollom. Corinne T. Ellingham. Joci Maher. Theressa Burns. Charlotte Fitzpatrick.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to begin debate on the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996, I rise with my fellow freshmen to offer our perspective on the challenge ahead. Mr. President, the individual Members of this class of freshmen Senators--11 strong--do not have much seniority. We do not chair powerful committees. But we do have one thing it seems many of our colleagues are missing--something far more valuable. We have the pulse of the people, and we always carry it. We took the pulse ourselves, during our Senate campaigns last year. At coffee shops, truck stops, town meetings, we heard from thousands of average Americans. They talked about high taxes and excessive, wasteful Government spending. They talked about Social Security and Medicare, and wondered if it would still be around for them, their children, and grandchildren. We listened, and we promised them that if they sent us to the Senate, we would fight to change things. We are deeply committed to change and to keeping our promises. If life in the Senate sometimes reminds me of the barnyard conversation between the chicken and the pig, as they argued over which one was more committed to the breakfast meal: ``I give eggs every morning,'' the chicken said proudly. ``I'm committed.'' ``Giving eggs isn't a commitment, it's participation,'' snorted the pig. ``Giving ham, now that's a commitment.'' Sadly, this body too often seems content to deliver eggs when the people are demanding ham. Mr. President, this freshmen class is committed to following through on the promises we made last November. And for the next week, we'll be focusing our attention on the Federal budget. Year after year, when they ran things on Capitol Hill, the Democrats offered up budgets which raised taxes, sent Government spending spiraling out of control, and created massive deficits. The voters soundly rejected that mentality in November. 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. Debate on our alternative begins today. Whatever form it eventually takes, a budget resolution that is truly serious about America's financial future must accomplish three equally important goals: We promised middle-class American families a budget that cuts taxes, and we will deliver. We'll deliver for the Smith family, and the Johnsons and the Joneses, average American families where both parents work, earn $48,270, and take home $31,664, and end up sending $16,606 or more than a third of their paychecks, directly to the Government. Families with children are now the lowest after-tax income group in America, below elderly households, below single persons, below families without children. As one person put it, those who say we do not need a tax cut, probably do not pay taxes. Mr. President, it has gotten so bad in my home State of Minnesota that it took until last Sunday, 134 days into 1995, for my constituents to finally reach Tax Freedom Day, the day when they're 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. I applaud the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee for his courageous work on the budget resolution, but I part ways with his blueprint when it comes to tax cuts. I say we had better find a way to help the Smiths, and the Johnsons, and the Joneses. The chairman states: ``Balance must first be achieved by reducing the rate of growth in Federal spending before tax reductions could be considered.'' That is like holding the taxpayers' money hostage, like calling tax cuts a dessert that we will share with the American people only after they have cleaned their plates. Anyone who thinks tax relief should be saved for the dessert cart has not taken the pulse of the people lately. Middle-class American families are paying the vast majority of taxes in this country, and they are fed up. They are working longer hours, sometimes even taking on a second job, just to [[Page S6843]] meet their annual tax obligations while trying to maintain their style of living. They are still pursuing the American dream, but the ever- increasing tax burden keeps pushing it out of reach. 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 is truly a tax break for the middle class: nearly $9 out of every $10 of tax relief goes to families making $75,000 or less. They are the ones who need our help the most, and we cannot ask them to wait another 6 or 7 years. Mr. President, I promised my constituents in Minnesota that tax relief will be my top priority in the Senate, and during the next week, I will do just that. The freshman class also promised American families that we would balance the budget. With or without a balanced budget amendment, we will deliver. Now, my good friend, the Budget Committee chairman, and his counterpart in the other Chamber, have crafted documents the naysayers said could never be achieved. The budget resolution we begin debating today, that brings the budget into balance by the year 2002, is proof that we are serious about living up to our pledge. Having to live within its means will be a new experience for a Congress that has only balanced its budget eight times in the past 64 years, and has not spent less than it has taken in since 1969. Even the Clinton administration, despite all its rhetoric about shrinking the deficit, has seemingly washed its hands of the deficit problem. Under the President's own budget plan, the deficit would increase from $177 billion this year to $276 billion in 2002, and add another $1.5 trillion to the national debt. Only Republicans have offered an alternative to this fiscal madness. And I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will find the courage to vote for a balanced budget. We're offering a plan to balance the budget, 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 if we do not tighten the belts today, they are destined to become nooses around the necks of the coming generations, who will someday become the innocent victims of our negligence. Mr. President, as Senate freshmen, my colleagues and I heard it over and over during our campaigns: the American people are willing to make those sacrifices, if they believe their Government is serious about making change. This Congress is serious. Finally, we promised that our budget will protect Medicare and Social Security. For the sake of America's senior citizens, we must protect, preserve, and improve Medicare, to make sure it is there for the next generation as well. The fact is, Medicare is in trouble, in large part due to fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement and misuse. By 1997, Medicare will pay out $1 billion more in benefits than it collects in revenue, and 5 years later, it will go bankrupt. Again, in our budget plan, we are working to preserve, protect, and improve the Medicare System. In fact, Medicare will remain the fastest growing program in the Federal budget. Over the next 7 years, we will spend $1.7 trillion to keep Medicare a healthy and viable health care provider for this generation of senior citizens. Social Security must receive the same care, although as a self-funded entity it will be taken off budget and dealt with separately from other programs. Clearly, the Government must honor its contract with our senior citizens, and the budget that Congress produces this year must ensure that the Social Security Program will survive and be there for older Americans. The best way to achieve that is to bring the Federal budget into balance. A budget that works for America will meet the needs of all our citizens, working men and women and their children, senior citizens, and the disadvantaged, while providing middle-class tax relief, balancing the budget by the year 2002, and protecting Social Security and Medicare. Mr. President, that is what we promised the people, and our promises were not made lightly. I remember hearing about a commencement speech given by Winston Churchill toward the end of his life. He sat patiently through the introduction, rose, and went to the podium. All he said was ``Never, never, never give up.'' Then he sat back down. Mr. President, this committed class of freshmen Senators has taken the pulse of the people, and we are not planning to give up on the ambitious agenda they sent us here to carry out. Like the latest chapter in the ``Die Hard'' movie trilogy, we will be here--with a vengeance--to remind our colleagues just what America's message last November was all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the measure before us lifting the 22-year-old export restrictions on domestic crude oil produced on Alaska's North Slope. I commend my distinguished colleague from Alaska, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for bringing this legislation to the floor. Clearly, the time has come for Congress to repeal an outdated law that no longer serves its intended purpose. When the export restrictions on Alaskan crude oil were originally enacted, many people believed that the legislation would enhance our long-term energy security. Today, however, we know that restricting the export of Alaskan crude oil has actually weakened our Nation by undermining our initiative to explore and develop new energy resources, and that is keeping us ever more dependent on foreign oil imports. Some 77 percent of this country's energy consumption is supplied by the oil and gas industry. Yet, the Department of Energy projects that crude oil production will continue to decline over the next decade. Last year, our Nation imported over half our domestic oil requirements. By the year 2005, the United States will be nearly 70 percent dependent on imported oil--not because consumption is on the rise, but because domestic production continues to fall. Every drop of oil that is produced by somebody else eventually adds up to a flood of lost U.S. jobs. Three hundred thousand oil-related jobs have been lost in the United States since 1985--the steepest decline in U.S. history. With oil production decreasing by 2\1/4\ million barrels every day, more job losses are surely ahead. Of course, decreased production means that revenues are down as well--down, in fact, by more than $50 billion in the last decade. To add insult to injury, the U.S. petroleum industry has been forced to look beyond American borders when it comes to oil production. We are now putting 65 percent of our exploration and production dollars into projects overseas, at a loss to the U.S. economy of $16 billion annually. Within the last few years, Congress has consistently rejected regulatory policies that foolishly try to constrain and control the natural flow of goods and services. But there is much more that Congress can do to improve the climate for domestic oil production. To that end, S. 395 seeks to replace a failed energy policy with a new strategy based on free-market principles. I am not suggesting that S. 395 will solve this Nation's oil production woes, but it will have a positive, lasting impact. Nearly every region of the country stands to benefit from lifting the export restrictions on Alaskan crude oil. First and foremost, it would mean new U.S. jobs. The Department of Energy estimates that if the export restrictions on Alaskan crude oil are lifted, as many as 16,000 new jobs would be created immediately. Up to 25,000 new jobs are likely by the end of the decade. Lifting the export restrictions would increase oil production in California and Alaska by as much as 110,000 barrels per day. This legislation will stimulate oil exploration and development in the oilfields of Alaska and California, boosting the economy along the west coast and enhancing our national long-term energy strategy. The bill also ensures that the U.S. merchant marine will maintain its traditional role of transporting Alaskan crude oil. This provision protects existing U.S. jobs by requiring that exported Alaskan crude oil be carried on American-crewed, American-flag tankers. Mr. President, history has taught us that free markets--not protectionism--make our Nation more secure. With this lesson in mind, I strongly urge my colleagues to join in the bipartisan effort to lift the ban on exports of Alaskan crude oil. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. GRAMS

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

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, yesterday, on May 14, 1995, Minnesotans marked two annual occasions: one that millions of families look forward to each year, and one that millions of Minnesota taxpayers await with a mixture of anger and frustration. First and foremost, of course, was Mother's Day, the day we all honor our mothers for the love and support they have given us. The second, less well-known but equally significant event was Minnesota Tax Freedom Day, the day Minnesotans quit working to pay taxes at the Federal, State, and local levels of government and begin working for themselves. Every dollar my constituents have earned so far this year has gone to pay taxes. For a total of 134 days, Minnesotans have been working for the government; 85 of these days were spent paying off Federal taxes, while the remaining 49 days were spent paying off State and local taxes. Tax Freedom Day comes much later in the year to Minnesota than it does to the Nation at large, which means Minnesotans spend longer than most Americans working to pay off their tax bills. For the average American taxpayer, Tax Freedom Day is on May 6, but Minnesotans must work more than a week longer for Uncle Sam and his cousins at the State and local levels. My constituents are encumbered with the sixth highest tax rate in the country. The only States whose Tax Freedom Days come after Minnesota's are Connecticut and New York, who both mark Tax Freedom Day on May 24; Washington, DC, and New Jersey, on May 18; and Hawaii, on May 17. For 2 years, the tax load borne by Minnesotans has remained constant, and Tax Freedom Day has fallen on the same day, May 14. But sadly, a lot has changed since President Clinton's 1993 budget package. In 1993, Tax Freedom Day in Minnesota was May 9. In effect, the tax increases imposed in President Clinton's 1993 budget have forced Minnesotans to work an additional 5 days just to pay off those new taxes. These 5 days could have been spent on a family vacation, but there is no time for fun when you are working to pay off the Government's spending splurges. The average per capita income of Minnesota is $24,403, 36.6 percent of which goes to pay taxes. Translated into dollar terms, the average annual tax bill for every Minnesota taxpayer this year will be $8,926, or over one-third of their hard-earned income. Americans face a veritable cornucopia of tax burdens in their day-to- day lives, overflowing with the income taxes and payroll taxes which represent the largest component of the average American's tax bill. In addition to these more visible taxes, the cost of nearly all goods and services are inflated by sales and excise taxes. There are property taxes, estate and other business taxes, and let us not forget the corporate income taxes which are passed along to consumers and employees in the form of higher prices and lower wages. The perverse thing about our current progressive income tax system is that as national income increases, the tax burden increases along with it, more than proportionally. As a result, economic contractions tend to reduce American's tax burden while economic expansions tend to increase it. It makes no sense that taxpayers should be penalized for robust economic growth by extracting more money from their paychecks. This is why I support tax cuts--real tax cuts--that help American families keep more of what they earn. The $500 per child tax credit goes a long way toward that end. Middle-class families could save more, or they could spend more--they would be given the freedom to do whatever they want with their money because it belongs to them. We may never see Tax Freedom Day coincide with New Year's Day or even Valentine's Day, but let us face it: We are about to begin debate on a new budget resolution, one that can counteract the onerous effects of Clinton's package of tax hikes 2 years ago. Let us not miss this opportunity to offer tax relief to America's families. Let us ensure that Tax Freedom Day comes a lot earlier next year than it did last year. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, for the last 2 weeks we have had a serious debate over our Nation's broken liability system. We have heard stores from supporters of the plaintiff's bar who claim that manufacturers are putting products on the market with little regard for consumer safety. And we have also heard from supporters of manufacturers who have anecdotes of honest individuals who were sued for multimillion-dollar awards and settled out of court to avoid more costly legal fees, even when they were innocent. Later today or tomorrow, there will be an effort by supporters of product liability reform to end debate, but before we do that, I wanted to make sure this body heard comments from a few of my constituents An all-too-familiar story from America's small businesses is exemplified in a letter from Trade Mart Furniture's Jerry Johnson, a constituent from Rochester, MN. Jerry writes: I've experienced firsthand the effects of a frivolous lawsuit. After two years of court appearances, legal fees and countless hours, I won. It cost almost $10,000 to defend myself. I thought the legal system was created to protect the citizen, not the profiteer. Ann Hartman of Hartman Tree Farms in Victoria, MN, states, ``I am tired of seeing lawyers make so much money off the tragedies of others.'' And a couple from Menahga, MN, who own Burkel Turkey Farms writes: The system now is a free-for-all for the money-hungry and the lawyers. There are far too many people out there that feel the system owes them something. We are at the mercy of dishonest people who are only out for a buck. It's different if a person has a legitimate claim, but something must be done to maintain a fair legal system for the honest people of this world. Mr. President, these are just a few of the comments I have received throughout my tenure as a representative from Minnesota, and as a small businessman myself, I understand the effects of the threat of a potential lawsuit. The fact is that almost 90 percent of all U.S. companies can expect to be named in a product liability lawsuit. The present liability system costs Americans $300 billion a year and like most Americans, my Minnesota constituents are concerned about the devastating effects the liability system has on them. Recent polls continue to show strong support for liability reform: 83 percent believe the present liability system has problems and should be improved, while 89 percent believe that ``too many lawsuits are being filed in America today.'' Our current system benefits the lawyers and the dishonest. It treats both plaintiffs and defendants unfairly. Inconsistent laws force both sides to sacrifice time and money on unpredictable losers. Consumers lose because they receive inadequate compensation. Some estimates have shown that our tort system consumes 57 cents of every $1 awarded in lawsuits. In addition, consumers wait unreasonable amounts of time before they receive compensation, and often pay outrageous fees to their attorneys. Manufacturers lose because liability concerns stifle research and development. A recent survey showed that because of fear of litigation, 47 percent of companies had withdrawn products from the market; 25 percent had discontinued some kind of research; and 8 percent actually had laid off workers. In fact in 1 year alone, Texas lost 79,000 jobs due to the cost of the liability system. Each year there are more than 70,000 product liability lawsuits filed in the United States--yet Great Britain only has an average of 200. Now, this is only one of the reasons liability insurance costs are 20 times higher in the United States than in Europe. As a result of this well-known liability gold-rush, the United States as a nation loses as well. According to the Product Liability Coordinating Committee, the cost of product liability ranges from $80 to $120 billion per year. These costs are passed directly on to you and me as consumers. Appropriately, this is known as the tort tax. For example, manufacturers of football helmets add $100 to the cost of a $200 helmet. Auto manufacturers add $500 to the price of a new car, and the markers of a $100 stepladder will add another $20 to its cost, just to cover potential liability. I know many of my colleagues have mentioned this, but I want to reiterate the fact that right here in Washington, DC, the Girl Scout Council must sell 87,000 boxes of Girl Scout cookies each year just to cover the cost of their liability insurance. In my own State of Minnesota, Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III, the son of Minnesota's great U.S. Senator, recently testified before the State legislature that his office spent $340,000 in 1994 defending Minnesota against frivolous lawsuits. Attorney General Humphrey offered a top-10 list of lawsuits from Minnesota inmates. These are just a few of the ridiculous claims that prisoners have filed: One prisoner claimed he had a constitutional right to a computer in his jail cell. One claimed that the President gave him a fungus. Another prisoner claimed underwear was not provided, and when it was provided, it was so tight that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment. If you think these lawsuits are laughable, try Mr. Humphrey's No. 1 frivolous lawsuit: One prisoner claimed that his primary reason for filing a lawsuit was ``pure delight in spending taxpayers' money.'' I understand that suits like these may be rare. However, they typify the problems with our current system. The Gorton-Rockefeller Product Liability Fairness Act will address many of the problems faced by well-intentioned, honest manufacturers. This legislation will establish alternative dispute resolution, extend protection to product sellers, provide an absolute defense for injuries received when the plaintiff was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and prevent automobile rental companies from being held liable for damages caused by the renters of its cars when the company is not at fault. In addition, the Gorton-Rockefeller bill will provide much-needed relief to suppliers of biomaterials. Currently, raw material suppliers who have no direct role in the raw material's ultimate use as a biomaterial share extraordinary and irrational liability risk with device manufacturers. Companies such as DuPont, Dow Chemical, and Dow Corning have decided to stop supplying manufacturers of medical devices with raw materials for fear of lawsuits. This legislation is progress, and is the first step in the right direction. While I am encouraged by the hard work of the Senators from Washington State and West Virginia, I am concerned that we may be opening up a new can of worms, when this legislation is signed into law. While it will offer protection for product manufacturers, my fear is that it will leave the service industry as the only remaining deep pocket. I believe the Senate should continue moving forward to reform our liability system, making sure that individuals who deserve compensation are made whole and that individuals who are not at fault are not held liable for someone else's actions. Mr. President, we should take this historic opportunity today to approve the Product Liability Fairness Act, and in doing so ensure that our liability system is fair to all parties involved, not just those who are looking for their golden nugget in the liability gold-rush.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am glad to have the opportunity to join with my fellow freshmen today to speak on the topic this week, ``100 Days of Reform for a New Century of Responsible Government.'' Having just returned from a series of townhall meetings in my home State of Minnesota, however, it would be more appropriate to refer to it as moving forward with the people's agenda. Over the Easter recess, I held town meetings in five cities, traveling over 1,000 miles, talking with hundreds of people across the State of Minnesota. And the mandate they delivered last November is more focused than ever--fix things in Washington. our $4.8 trillion debt. The folks I talked with agree something needs to be done now. They have waited long enough. They are not content to have a Government running deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars each year for as far as the eye can see. They are understandably frustrated by decades of Washington doublespeak when it comes to making the tough choices necessary to balance the budget. And most importantly, they are concerned for their children and grandchildren who will be forced to finance the Government's spending spree. Because of that massive $4.8 trillion debt, by the time every child born after 1992 enters the work force, they will face a Federal, State, and local tax rate between 84 and 94 percent. Think about it. If Washington keeps doing what it is doing, spending dollars it does not have and passing along the bills, every child born after 1992 will spend their whole life working just to pay off a Federal spending spree that they never even asked for. Fortunately, my constituents had an opportunity to voice their concerns during my townhall meetings in Minnesota, and today, I want to share what they had to say. I brought with me some of the charts that I took around the State with me in these town meetings to try to point out some of the problems that I think we are facing. This first chart we were talking about is Federal taxes as a share of the median family income. Federal Taxes as a Share of Median Family Income The percentage of income paid to the Federal Government in direct taxes went from 3 percent in 1948 to 24.5 percent in 1992. In the 5 years between 1948 and 1953, Federal taxes rose from 3 to 9 percent of gross income. You have to remember this is coming out of World War II where we had to go into debt to help finance. Only 3 percent at that time was going to the Federal taxes. In the 8 years between 1972 and 1980, the average family saw their tax bill rise from 16 percent of their annual income to 23.5 percent of their income. The rise of the Social Security payroll tax and the erosion of the personal exemption have been the largest contributors to the reduction of posttax income for families. It is no wonder middle class families are finding it difficult to buy a house, put their kids through college, or put money aside for their retirement. average income families would be taxed $10,060 less per year Let us look at chart No. 2, the average income families would be taxed $10,060 less per year. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the total pretax income for a family of four in 1992 was $47,787. After taxes, this same family's income fell to $36,915. Under the 1948 tax rates, the median income family of four would pay only $812 in taxes to the Federal Government, leaving the family with an after tax income of $46,975 when adjusted to 1992 dollar amounts. In 1992, a family of four, with the median income of $47,787, paid $10,060 more in direct taxes to the Federal Government than the same family would have if tax rates had remained at 1948 levels. To put that into everyday terms, the median price of a single-family home purchased in 1992 was $103,700. The average annual mortgage payment was $7,380. The annual family income lost to increasing Federal tax burdens exceeds the average annual mortgage payments for an average home by 36 percent. What could you do if you could keep another $10,060 in your pockets? You could provide for the things your family needs without turning to the Federal Government and asking for more subsidies and more help. The dollars would remain in your pocket. two-earner median income--1994 The next chart that I was able to talk with Minnesotans about is the 1994 two-earner median income chart. A median household with two breadwinners spends about $2 out of every $5 it earns on taxes; 40 percent of everything you bring in goes to State, Federal, and local taxes. The average family spends more money on Federal, State, and local taxes than it spends on food, clothing, housing, and medical care combined. This does not include sales tax or your Social Security, the FICA tax. That brings it up to nearly 49.6 percent of everything an average family makes in this country which goes to pay for government. Why are Federal taxes so high today? After all, did Ronald Reagan not pass a massive income tax cut in 1981? Yes, Reagan did sign a 25- percent income tax rate cut for all Americans in 1981. However, there have been six major tax increases since--1982, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1990, and 1993. These have nullified the Reagan tax cuts. In the early 19th century, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch versus Maryland: ``The power to tax involves the power to destroy.'' Today, this statement still rings true. Taxes are destroying the income of American families, leaving only 60 percent of what it earns to spend on life's necessities and joys. In 1966 the median income family of four will work until May 30 to pay their share of Federal, State, and local taxes--98 days. In 1948, the average family of four worked only 8 days to pay their share of Federal taxes. Had Congress adopted the Republican alternative budget for fiscal year 1995, roughly 35 million families could have deducted $500 per year from their tax bill per child next April 15. For the average family of four, that extra $1,000 would be handy. sources of government spending fiscal year 1995 The budget is composed of two principal fund groups, Federal funds and trust funds. This is how the bills are paid in Washington. Federal funds carry out the general purposes of government, whereas trust funds, such as Social Security and Medicare, are designated by law and financed by specially allocated collections. In 1994, trust fund surpluses totaled $95 billion. Under current law, the sum of the trust fund surplus and Federal fund deficit equals the unified deficit, which is commonly referred to as simply the deficit. Merging these trust funds--this is what we collect in tax receipts from your income tax, the 1040 business taxes, and others--the trust funds bring in $511 billion and pay for Social Security payments, and others. But last year there was a $107 billion surplus in that trust fund which the Government also borrowed along with the green part of this chart, $192.5 billion. What I would like to say about this green and what came out of the trust fund is money that we are borrowing from our children. We are taking this out of their future accounts to supply the dollars we need today in order to deficit spend, and the trust fund receipts in general revenues will total over $1.2 trillion or 81.5 percent of the Federal spending. Unfortunately, this sum does not even begin to cover the Government's expenditures. The Government again will borrow from our children this $192 billion. On the next chart, in real terms, a family of five making about $45,000 would have 10 percent of its Federal tax burden reduced through the $500 per child tax credit. This chart shows where many argue this is a tax credit for the rich. They talk about the $200,000 a year income. In real terms, families making under $75,000 a year would get 86 percent of the tax credit on $500 per child. If you make under $100,000, about 95 percent of the families making under $100,000 would receive a tax credit. In the next chart, the White House and congressional Democrats argue that a $500 per child tax credit is unnecessary because they expanded the earned income tax credit in the 1993 bill. But this claim ignores the difference between a wage subsidy and a tax cut. The EITC is a wage supplement for working families with children with incomes up to $26,000 per year. It is intended to offset the Social Security tax burden on these families and to increase their wages through a cash subsidy. A family of four earning $14,000 a year--slightly below the official poverty level--will pay no income taxes $2,140. Now, this family is then eligible to receive some $2,400 from the earned income tax credit, nearly $260 more than its entire tax burden. A family earning $28,000 a year--and not eligible for the earned income tax credit--would have 57 percent of its income tax bill and 17 percent of its total Federal tax bill erased by the $500 per child tax credit. This is an important part of tax relief to these families that do not qualify but still make under $35,000 a year. Family tax relief, I believe, should not be means tested. Every working family in this country is overtaxed, thus every working family, regardless of income, should be eligible for a $500 per child tax credit. The Tax Code should not penalize children simply because of their parents' income. Now, along with family tax relief, the Minnesotans with whom I met during the past recess are demanding a balanced Federal budget with or without a balanced budget amendment. And if that means putting the Federal Government on a strict low-fat diet, then so be it. One thing I heard over and over again during my town meetings, from Minnesotans who pay their own bills and balance their own budget, is that if they can do it, then the Federal Government can do it as well. One thing is very clear: The budget can be balanced, and we can do it without gutting the vital programs on which millions of Americans depend. We will do it by containing the growth of Government while continuing to meet the needs of America's families, children, and senior citizens. By streamlining Federal bureaucracy and sending the money back to the State governments in the form of block grants, Minnesotans know that they will have more power, not less power, more resources, not fewer, and new and better opportunities. I have every confidence that the people of Minnesota can direct those resources and provide for those in need better than Washington bureaucrats could ever hope to do. That is my motivation as we move forward during these next 100 days, and it is my hope that every Senator remembers the messages that they have heard over the recess and join in the effort to enact what we call the people's agenda. We need to restrict or restrain the growth of spending in the Federal Government, but we also need tax relief for Minnesota families and for the Nation's families. We cannot have one without the other. I hope very strongly that as we move forward in these next 100 days we will be able to provide some of this long sought tax relief for middle-class American families. I thank the Chair. I would now like to turn the floor over to my colleague, the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft]. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I think most Senators would agree that health care reform was the most important piece of legislation we debated during the 103d Congress. Throughout the health care debate, we heard from people here in Washington and across the Nation, and we learned what they valued most about our Nation's health care system. We system should be changed. Fortunately, we also learned that the majority of Americans did not agree with the President's plan to turn the entire health care system over to the Federal Government. But, while most Americans adamantly rejected his radical approach to health care reform, we also found tremendous support for reasonable and sensible reforms which will immediately improve our health care system. In particular, we learned that the American people overwhelmingly believe we need to dramatically reshape our Nation's medical malpractice system. Recent polls continue to show strong support for liability reform. Eighty-three percent of Americans believe that the present liability system has problems and should be improved. Eighty-nine percent believe that too many lawsuits are being filed in America today; and Sixty-seven percent of American voters agree with the statement that ``I am afraid that one day I, or someone in my family, will be the victim of a lawsuit.'' Some of my colleagues might ask, why we are discussing medical malpractice reform during the product liability debate? Simple: many of the same problems facing American manufacturers also affect our doctors and health care providers. During the last two decades, there has been an explosion of litigation that has saddled the health care industry with substantial costs wholly unrelated to providing medical care and services. While I stand behind the right of every individual to right a wrong through the judicial system, this litigation bonanza does nothing to improve patient care or improve service delivery. It simply encourages frivolous lawsuits by creating an environment which is weighted in favor of the plaintiff's bar and against the world's best health care system. Second, this ever-increasing tide of litigation has forced a large number of physicians to practice defensive medicine to protect themselves from lawsuits. This practice passes along greater costs to patients and insurers. Lewin-VHI conducted a study in 1993, and discovered that the U.S. health care delivery system could save up to $76.2 billion over 5 years by eliminating defensive medicine practices. Taxpayers also feel the pain of defensive medicine in their checkbooks since the physicians who treat America's poor and elderly are forced to practice defensive medicine which increases the costs of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. Defensive medicine is a drain on our Federal budget, and one we cannot afford. In 1991, medical liability premiums for hospitals and physicians totaled $9.2 billion. The current system has had a chilling effect on the ability of patients to access their doctors--especially those who live in rural areas. For example, 70 percent of all ob-gyns will be sued during their careers. Many have decided to no longer offer obstetric services to their patients for fear of lawsuits. And obstetricians continue to pay the highest premiums of all health care providers. From the standpoint of the victims, even when a lawsuit is justified and reasonable, they are often forced to wait up to 5 years between the time their injury occurred and the time they are compensated, under our current system. More often than not, attorneys will only litigate cases with high award potentials, which tends to discourage attorneys from settling the cases early. Finally, and perhaps most troubling, the medical malpractice system has placed a wedge between doctors and their patients; it undermines the mutual trust which is essential to the doctor-patient relationship. Last year, after the relevant House committees failed to address medical malpractice reform, I introduced legislation very similar to the amendment offered today by Senators McConnell, Kassebaum, and Lieberman. With this amendment, the Senate has the opportunity to do what the American people want--reform the system. This amendment would do that by: Ensuring full recovery for economic and noneconomic damages including lost wages, as well as compensation for pain and suffering; Providing alternative dispute resolution; Establishing the use of the collateral source rule; Abolishing joint liability; and Requiring periodic payment of future damage awards. These reforms are the first steps toward addressing the failure of our medical malpractice system. I came to the floor today to reaffirm my support for sensible improvements to our badly broken medical malpractice system. As many of my colleagues have noted--Democrats and Republicans alike--our current system is costly, slow, inequitable, and unpredictable. Our system has failed hospitals, doctors, and ultimately, it has failed its patients. The American people deserve better. While this amendment has my full support and I recognize the many hours of hard work my colleagues spent on this legislation, I believe we should go further. I strongly encourage the Senate to include the $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages. In addition, we should extend protection to the manufacturers of medical devices by eliminating punitive damage awards if the device has received FDA approval. According to Medical Alley, a coalition of Minnesota's entire health care industry, ``the current liability system has a negative effect on health care product innovation.'' They cite the fact that innovative products are not being developed, which has reduced our ability to compete in worldwide markets. I urge my colleagues to ensure that significant changes are implemented. However, if the Congress and the President fail to secure fundamental reforms to our liability system, I will move forward and introduce legislation which will address the concerns of so many American doctors, consumers, and patients alike. Mr. President, our medical malpractice system is in critical condition, but it is not too late to save it. The American people are demanding reform and the Senate must deliver. We need a system that meets the needs of all Americans, not just the plaintiffs' bar. I believe this amendment is the prescription we have been looking for to cure this problem. Thank you, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon with a question: Where are the loud and angry voices? President Clinton traveled to my home State of Minnesota yesterday to speak out against what he called the ``loud and angry voices * * * the purveyors of hatred and division'' that he claims have fostered a climate of profound distrust in government. Mr. President, I will concede that there is indeed deep discontent in the heartland, some of it focused on the Federal Government; discontent was reflected at the ballot box in November. People are fed up with a government they believe has grown too big, too overpowering, too unresponsive. They heard the conservative message of less government and it hit home. Just as Americans have done time and time again throughout the history of this Nation, they started a revolution of ideas by voting for a change. Now, that is what courageous Americans do--they vote. Courageous Americans do not plant bombs. Courageous Americans do not murder their neighbors and their neighbors' children. Cowards do. I have been receiving telephone calls from angry constituents, furious that--simply because they consider themselves opponents of bigger government or higher taxes--that their President would seek to somehow tie them to the actions of the desperate few who committed unspeakable violence in Oklahoma City. Why stop there? Why not blame fertilizer producers and the folks who sell it? Why not blame the employees who rented out the truck that carried the bomb? Or the Federal Government itself? I will tell Americans why we cannot--and must not--play the blaming game: because the only individuals responsible for this tragedy are the very cowards who built the bomb, parked in front of that building, and in that horrible explosion, took innocent American lives. For some things that happen, there is no reason, and out of anger we tend to blame. We must not blame each other. Those who did this--they alone are responsible, and they should be brought forth in the American tradition of justice and held accountable for their actions. We must remember the pain of Oklahoma City, but this is not a time to score political points or to somehow use the victims of this tragedy as the pawns of some crazy chess match. This is a time for healing, for sticking together. We should be drawing ourselves closer to our fellow Americans--not pushing each other apart. Mr. President, democracy can be a hazardous endeavor. There are deep risks--but equally deep riches to be gained--every time a civilization is entrusted with the freedom to govern itself. A government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people'' can never be sealed off from the world. We cannot pass enough laws to prevent what happened in Oklahoma City. But with the promise of punishment that is swift and severe, we make a bold statement that the vicious actions of a few will not be tolerated within a democracy. If President Clinton had listened carefully during his visit to Minnesota, he would have heard the same loud and angry voices that I hear echoing across this country. The loud and angry voices I hear are not political or ideological. They are the voices of real people--in Oklahoma, in Minnesota, and across the country--who have witnessed this awful tragedy and are demanding justice. We would not serve them well by politicizing tragedy. Instead, we must punish those who committed this act, stand by those who were injured in the blast, and keep forever in our memories respect for those who lost their lives on April 19, 1995.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I introduce S. 676 and submit Senate Resolution 104, a congressional reference bill and companion a private relief bill for Norwood Manufacturing of Grand Rapids, MN. On May 26, 1987, Norwood Manufacturing was awarded a contract by the U.S. Postal Service to manufacture wooden nestable pallets. On February 9, 1988, the U.S. Postal Service informed Norwood that it was terminating the contract. The Postal Service first sought to terminate the contract for failure to make timely deliveries. But, when it appeared that this was not a legitimate claim, the Postal Service indicated that Norwood's pallets did not meet specification. This claim came even though Norwood's pallets passed all of the tests required under the contract. Norwood disputes the Postal Services claim and, if given a chance, can present evidence from the Postal Services' own inspectors that support this contention. Norwood claims that any termination by the Postal Service should have been for convenience, whereby the Postal Service would pay Norwood for its costs of producing the pallets. Instead, the Postal Service chose to terminate the contract for fault causing the company to dissolve, leaving the small businessmen who owned and operated Norwood in debt. The company contested the Postal Service's decision in the U.S. Court of Claims. On August 10, 1990, the Court of Claims ruled against Norwood on summary judgement; the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Claims without any explanation or opinion. This came as a surprise to both the Postal Service and their lawyers in the Department of Justice. In fact, Justice Department lawyers had already indicated to Norwood a desire to discuss a settlement of the matter as soon as the Court of Claims denied the Postal Service's motion for summary judgement. Naturally, when the judge ruled in favor of the Postal Service the Justice Department saw no need to further negotiate a settlement. Mr. President, Norwood deserves an impartial review of the facts. This is why I have submitted Senate Resolution 104, which merely requests a review of this case by the U.S. Court of Claims. After a 1- year review by the court, Congress will possess a determination by the court which will enable Congress to consider if the relief requested in the private bill is justified. Therefore, at this time, I am not advocating passage of the private bill, but instead, seeking Senate approval of Senate Resolution 104 that this matter deserves further judicial review.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to dispell a misconception that has become popular in Washington--the idea that tax cuts cannot go hand in hand with deficit reduction. There are some who suggest that the massive deficit we have today is due to the tax-cutting policies of the 1980's. What they ignore is the fact that during the 1980's, the number of jobs increased, the amount of taxable income increased, and as a result, tax revenues increased--all due to the Reagan tax cuts. What did not happen were the spending cuts promised by Congress but never delivered. In fact, spending during the 1980's increased significantly more than the increase in revenue, leading directly to the deficit we face today. This year we are on the verge of making the same mistake, but in the opposite direction. This time, Congress may pass spending cuts without providing the tax relief we promised the American people. One of the worst ideas I have heard during the budget debate, and frankly, it came from a member of my own party, was the idea of a deficit lockbox to stall enactment of the $500 per-child tax credit. Under the lockbox proposal, the tax cuts promised by Congress would be repealed if Congress fails to meet specific deficit targets. In other words, if Congress were to act as irresponsibly in the future as it has in the past, Congress would not suffer the consequences, Washington would not suffer the consequences. The taxpayer would. Even now, our colleagues in the House have come up with a compromise to tie tax cuts to deficit reduction. If the deficit targets are not met, the tax cuts are not delivered. But is it not just like Congress to think that way? If we were not in a collegial body, I would say the idea was just plain stupid. Instead, let me just label it misguided. Mr. President, we cannot compromise the taxpayers of this country or the future of their children. Instead of a deficit lockbox involving tax cuts, what we should have is the automatic spending reduction mechanism Senator Coats and I have proposed in our Families First bill. Under our legislation, if Congress fails to keep the growth of spending capped at 2 percent each year, an automatic, across-the-board sequester, excluding Social Security, would take effect. In other words, every spending program would be held to a growth rate of 2 percent. That way, Congress would have to pay the price for its own failings. Congress would have to explain to the taxpayers why they couldn't make the tough choices to slow the rate of growth of spending in order to balance the budget. It is clear, Mr. President, that deficit reduction must be a top priority of this Congress. But it is also clear that tax relief is equally urgent. And while there are some in this Chamber who say the two cannot go hand in hand-- I say the two must go hand in hand. We cannot allow the opponents of middle-class tax relief to pit one against the other. Mr. President, I am reminded of the animal trainer who walks into the lion cage. There is a lion to the left of him and a tiger to the right. Both are ready to devour him if he makes a wrong move. Do you believe for one instant that the lion-tamer will be foolish enough to focus his attention on either animal, while completely ignoring the other? Like the lion-tamer, Congress is facing a pair of equally dangerous beasts. In one corner looms the Federal deficit, in the other sits the oppressive tax burden American families are being asked to bear. We cannot ignore one at the expense of the other. They both need to be dealt with before they overpower us and eat this Nation alive. The mandate of the November election is clear, and the people are demanding change. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I yield an additional 2 minutes from the time allotted to the majority leader for his amendment.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to share my strong concerns about the safe and prompt return of two American citizens currently being held in an Iraqi prison. William Barloon, the brother of one of my constituents in Minnesota, and David Daliberti unintentionally strayed into Iraqi territory on March 13 while seeking to visit friends in the demilitarized zone between Kuwait and Iraq. They were allowed to pass through two check points, one run by the United Nations and the other by Iraqis, before they were arrested for not possessing appropriate visas to enter Iraq. Thus, the very vulnerable position in which these men found themselves was not altogether of their own making. Following their arrest, Mr. Barloon and Mr. Daliberti were given a rushed trial with no Americans present and without satisfactory legal counsel. An Iraqi court sentenced them to 8 years in prison, a very severe and disproportionate punishment for what was, at most, simple carelessness and neglect. Mr. President, I also rise in strong support of the amendment offered yesterday by the gentlemen from Iowa to condemn the conviction and sentencing of Mr. Barloon and Mr. Daliberti. We must send a loud and clear message to the Iraqi Government: Under no circumstances should it even attempt to link its unjustified detention of the Americans to other international issues. The Iraqi Government must be made to realize that the longer they hold these two men, the more they will heighten tensions and damage relations with the United States and the rest of the international community. If Iraqi hopes to use American citizens as bargaining chips in negotiations on U.N. economic sanctions, it is sadly mistaken. Nothing less than the immediate release of Mr. Barloon and Mr. Daliberti will be satisfactory. Finally, I want to take this opportunity to thank those countries that are assisting the U.S. Government on this matter. Poland, in particular, deserves our gratitude for making sure that its diplomats have visited the Americans in prison and were present at their trial. I hope other countries will prove to be as cooperative as we work to resolve this situation. Mr. President, as we all work to gain the quick release and safe exit from Iraq for Mr. Barloon and Mr. Daliberti, our prayers and thoughts are with them and their families.