Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife be granted permission to conduct a hearing Tuesday, June 11, 1996, at 9:30 a.m., hearing room (SD-406), on implementation of salmon and steelhead recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest to solicit testimony on installation of the surface collector at Lower Granite Dam, recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and the Snake River Recovery team on independent peer-reviewed science, and the establishment of an independent scientific advisory board.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development and Related Matters be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 11 and Wednesday, June 12, 1996, to conduct hearings pursuant to Senate Resolution 120.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 11, 1996, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed meeting on intelligence matters.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 11, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on Indian trust fund management by the Department of the Interior and implementation of the Indian Trust Fund Management Act of 1994. The hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 11, 1996, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on Olympics and the threat of terrorism.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 11, 1996, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin immediately following the business meeting scheduled at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider S. 1010, a bill to amend the unit of general local government definition for Federal payments in lieu of taxes to include unorganized boroughs in Alaska, and for other purposes; S. 1807, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, regarding the Kake Tribal Corp. public interest land exchange, and S. 1187, a bill to convey certain real property located in the Tongass National Forest to Daniel J. Gross, Sr., and Douglas K. Gross, and for other purposes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 11, 1996, for purposes of conducting a full committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Tuesday, June 11, 1996, session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the condition of livestock markets.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 11, 1996, in open session, to consider the nominations of Gen. John H. Tilelli Jr., USA, for reappointment to the grade of general and to be commander in chief, U.N. Command/Combined Forces Command/United States Forces, Korea; Lt. Gen. Wesley K. Clark, USA, for promotion to the grade of general and to be commander in chief, United States Southern Command; and Lt. Gen. Walter Kross, USA, for promotion to the grade of general and to be commander in chief, United States Transportation Command.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today we recognize the departure of a great friend and colleague, Majority Leader Robert Dole, from the U.S. Senate. In honor of his departure, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a poem by Albert Caswell, a longtime guide for the U.S. Capitol, which pays tribute Majority Leader Robert Dole.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the resolution that I now send to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Daschle is a resolution that follows a great tradition in the Senate where we name rooms, sometimes buildings, after our colleagues. We have buildings--the Russell Building, Hart, and Dirksen, all named after outstanding Senators. On the first floor of this building we have the Hugh Scott Room named after a former Republican leader, and down the hall the Mansfield Room, another great leader who served the longest as Senate majority leader, and we also have the Howard Baker Room that is now the Office of Senator Dole. All these honors were a very fine and noble tribute. But the tribute we name today, or the one we are making today is naming the balcony adjacent to the Office of the Republican Leader as the Robert J. Dole Balcony. It was Senator Dole who asked this balcony be made accessible to legislators and to the leaders. I can tell you that there has been a lot of good legislative work done on that balcony. I can also tell you that sometimes the balcony is called ``the Dole Beach.'' To our leader, we wanted to have a lasting remembrance, because you are part of this Capitol. You are part of this institution. You are one of the reasons why this institution is greatly respected, because of the respect we have for you.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am not sure I got an answer, but I think I was correct in stating that the Senator's request--he would like to offer that. I object. I object on the grounds--because Social Security taxes are taxes. Social Security outlays are spending. Constitutionality, in my opinion, should not be confused by what I would say is maybe an attempt to obstruct or maybe give political coverage for people who are not supporting a real constitutional amendment which says all revenues and all expenditures, and you cannot spend more than is received. I object. I respectfully object.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we need to pass this amendment today. The House has passed it. The Senate came within one vote last year. We need to pass it this year. We need to pass it today and send it to the States for ratification.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment Senator Hatch from Utah for his leadership, as well as Senator Craig from Idaho for his leadership, as well as Senator Simon, and most of all, Senator Dole, for his leadership, because they strongly support passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, as the American people do. Mr. President, I heard my distinguished colleague from West Virginia pull out the Constitution. I know he has great respect for the Constitution, as I do. A statement Thomas Jefferson made in 1798 I will quote: I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. Thomas Jefferson was right. He was right in 1789. It is the right thing to do today. Also, Mr. President, I will read a letter from the Governor of Oklahoma, addressed to the President of the United States. Dear Mr. President: On Friday, May 31, at 4:59 p.m., the Legislature of the State of Oklahoma adjourned its 1996 session. Not once during that four-month session was there a moment of discussion about deficit spending. Not one penny was appropriated to pay interest on a state debt. No bill was passed that spent a cent in excess of actual state revenues-- all because the Constitution of Oklahoma contains an amendment that requires a balanced budget. The Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution will be considered in the Senate this week. I urge you to follow the examples of 49 of our 50 states-- including Oklahoma and Arkansas--and support this effort to import common sense from the states to Washington. Sincerely, Frank Keating.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I object--at least I reserve the right to object. I will make a comment to my friend and colleague from Oregon. Let me ask a question. The essence of the unanimous-consent request is that he wants to have placed before the Senate by unanimous consent a constitutional amendment to balance the budget with an exception saying we are not going to count Social Security--Social Security taxes do not count, Social Security spending does not count, Social Security balances do not count--and the Senator wants to have that placed before the Senate without amendment, without discussion, and for a vote. Is that correct?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to speak on the Defend America Act. First, let me state I am very disappointed that the Senate, one, had to file a cloture motion, and, two, was unsuccessful in obtaining cloture so we could at least take up the Defend America Act, debate it, discuss it and vote on it. It is unfortunate the Democrats in the Senate today decided to filibuster even moving to consider legislation which would allow us to further develop systems capable of defending America. Even right now we are defenseless against intercontinental ballistic missiles. I want to compliment Senator Dole for scheduling this for a floor vote, I compliment the House of Representatives for passing it, but I am displeased that the Senate was not able to consider this legislation. It is unfortunate to think that we need to have 60 votes just to move to consider the Defend America Act. I am happy to cosponsor this act. I think it is good legislation, needed legislation. It was part of the defense authorization bill that we passed last year that unfortunately President Clinton vetoed. He vetoed it for whatever reason. I think in the campaign he continued to refer to the strategic defense initiative, star wars. But for whatever reason, he leaves us defenseless against incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles, missiles that could have a nuclear warhead, missiles that could have a chemical warhead or a biological warhead. Right now we do not have defense capabilities. Regrettably, the vote today was almost straight party line. We had all Republicans vote in favor of taking up this legislation. One Republican Senator was necessarily absent. We had one Democrat, Senator Heflin, that voted for it. I compliment Senator Heflin. I hate to see him leave the Senate. He has been one of the Senators I think that shows courage on occasion and says, ``I'm going to do what is right for this country.'' The Senator from Alabama, I compliment him for his vote. What was right for this country was voting for the Defend America Act. We do need to develop capabilities to be able to destroy incoming missiles that we do not have today. President Clinton does not agree with that. And I am going to go through a statement that talks about what the Defend America Act does, and what it does not do, and why it is needed. The Defend America Act of 1996 states clearly and simply the United States should be defended against limited, unauthorized or accidental ballistic missile attacks and calls for the deployment of a national defense system to protect America. This bill does not violate any treaty. It only urges the administration to negotiate with Russia changes to the 1972 Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty to allow for the deployment of an effective missile defense system. If an agreement is not reached within 1 year after the bill is enacted, the President and Congress are to consider withdrawing from the treaty, as provided under article 15 of the treaty. Why is the legislation needed? Currently the United States is undefended. We are defenseless against ballistic missile attack. Most people are surprised and even shocked to hear this. They are of the mistaken belief that the United States can defend itself against incoming ballistic missiles. They are wrong. While the United States remains defenseless, Russia long ago recognized the value of missile defenses and deployed its own missile defense system around Moscow. In the ultimate irony, the United States is now assisting Israel in acquiring its own missile defense system to protect Israeli citizens. I wish the Clinton administration could explain why it will help Israel defend its citizens against missile attack but refuse to protect Americans against missiles. That does not make sense. Maybe it makes good politics, but it does not make good policy. Mr. President, the threats are real, and they are growing. It is clear that ballistic missile threats to the United States are growing from a couple of sources, unauthorized or accidental ballistic missile attacks from Russia and China and also from small dictatorships now fielding missile forces. We may no longer think in terms of having to defend ourselves against a massive Soviet missile attack. Yet political instability and political uncertainty in Russia and China emphasize the need to guard against a possible unauthorized or accidental missile launch. China has proven willing to threaten the use of ballistic missiles for political and military blackmail, as shown during the Taiwan Strait crisis in March of this year. One month before Chinese military exercises and its launching ballistic missiles into the Taiwan Strait, a Chinese official warned Charles Freeman, Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, that ``the United States would not intervene on Taiwan's behalf, because Americans would not be willing to sacrifice Los Angeles on Taiwan's behalf,'' as reported in the Los Angeles Times on January 27, 1996, page 5. Recently, lower level Chinese officials made a not-so-veiled threat to American officials. Winston Lord, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific, quoted these Chinese officials as saying the United States ``wouldn't dare defend Taiwan because they'd [China] rain nuclear bombs on Los Angeles,'' as reported in the Boston Globe, March 18 of this year. Other ballistic missile threats exist or are also on the horizon. More than 25 countries currently possess, or are seeking to acquire, weapons of mass destruction--namely, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Many countries that already have shorter range ballistic missiles are seeking to acquire more sophisticated, long-range ballistic missiles. Rather than defend Americans, the Clinton administration is rationalizing its inaction by hiding behind questionable intelligence estimates. While recent intelligence estimates say that a new ballistic missile threat to the United States will not appear for the next 15 years, this analysis is flawed for several reasons. First, it focuses only on indigenous development and assumes that international trade does not exist. The Secretary of Defense, William Perry, recently admitted the intelligence community's estimate ``could be foreshortened if any of those nations were able . . . to get direct assistance from countries that already have [such systems], either sending them missiles, selling them missiles, or giving them important component or technology assistance.'' That was in his statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 3 of this year. In fact, Secretary Perry recently acknowledged that, ``We do have information that China was seeking SS-18 technology from Russia.'' That was May 22 of this year. The SS-18 is a massive, 10-warhead ICBM. By integrating SS-18 technology into its current ICBM arsenal, China would greatly enhance the range and sophistication of its nuclear weapons capability. We should remember that China has sold ballistic missiles to other countries and has exported missile technology to Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. Second, the estimate that no new threat to the United States will appear within 15 years focuses only on the continental United States. What about Alaska? What about Hawaii? The Clinton administration apparently prefers not to include the cities in these States as part of our Nation, even though they could be vulnerable to a North Korean attack in just a few years. In 1995, the Acting Director of Central Intelligence, Adm. William Studeman, acknowledged that ``if Pyongyang has foreshortened its development program [of the Taepo Dong I or Taepo Dong II], we could see these missiles earlier'' than 3 to 5 years. That was before the Intelligence Committee on April 3, 1995. Finally, intelligence estimates are often wrong. Several years before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Maj. George Fielding Elliot, author and military science writer, declared, ``A Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a strategic impossibility,'' as quoted in September of 1938. This prediction is chillingly similar to the ones we are hearing from critics of the Defend America Act today. Looking at the situation today, while recent 1995 national intelligence estimates state, ``We [the intelligence community] are likely to detect any indigenous long-range missile program many years before development,'' it was the same community that failed to detect the breadth of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Once international inspections were conducted after the Persian Gulf war, it was revealed that Iraq's nuclear program was far larger and more advanced than the United States intelligence community had predicted, and the inspections showed that Saddam Hussein was just months away from deploying a nuclear bomb, not years, as the intelligence community had estimated. Just several months ago, CIA Director John Deutch admitted Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Libya all had explored the possibility of buying fissile materials as a way of rapidly acquiring an arsenal of nuclear weapons. So far, according to Deutch, none has succeeded in these efforts. But the CIA Director further stated the United States and its allies ``have been lucky so far.'' That was in the Washington Post of March 21 of this year. Mr. President, I am not willing to depend on luck to keep Americans safe from ambitious leaders such as Iraq's Saddam Hussein and North Korea's Kim Jong-il, who are eagerly seeking to acquire more weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton administration prefers to rely on cold war theories and an outdated 1971 treaty to protect America. The Republicans' Defend America Act provides a vision for the future where the United States and Russia negotiate changes to the moribund 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, commonly called the ABM Treaty, to allow for national defense against the emerging threats to both Russia and the United States from Third World countries. Just like the last guest lingering at a dinner party, the ABM Treaty has overstayed its welcome. Let us be very clear. Nothing in the Defend America Act requires the United States to withdraw from or violates the ABM Treaty. The act merely reiterates that withdrawal from the treaty is a legal option under the provisions of the ABM Treaty itself and urges considering such withdrawal if negotiated changes are not forthcoming within 1 year. Some of the statements that were made earlier today, I think, frankly, are not the case, or maybe our colleagues have not read this legislation as closely as they should have. The imperative for deploying a national defense system has never been more clear. Yet the Clinton administration refused to take immediate steps to defend America. Last year, we worked hard to include similar language in the 1996 DOD authorization bill, requiring the President to deploy by a certain date a missile defense system to protect our country. President Clinton vetoed this bill largely because of this provision. So we passed the defense authorization bill without it. Now we try to pass it as an individual item. The Democrats unfortunately, with one exception, Senator Heflin from Alabama, said, ``No, we do not want to consider it. We do not want to debate it.'' Mr. President, I think that is a sad day for our country. It bothers me when I think of the fact that we had Americans lose their lives in Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf war because a Scud missile came in and our only defense capability at that time was the Patriot antimissile defense. But the Patriot is a very limited defense and was only partially successful. It destroyed a couple of missiles that were fired toward Israel and fired toward Saudi Arabia, but destroyed them in their backyard, as the missile was coming in, in some cases just right before it reached its target. As I said, it was only partially successful. That is not a defense capability against more sophisticated weapons. The Scuds that the Iraqis were firing at Americans, Saudi Arabians, and Israelis, those were old missiles, old technology, way behind the times, not sophisticated in any way, that we can only knock down. Our success rate was limited. People would be really shocked if they realized we do not have the capability to shoot down incoming missiles. We need it. We have the technology to develop it. It can be done a lot more economically than the Congressional Budget Office said. It came up with an estimate that said over the next 14 years it might cost $31 to $61 billion. In our bill we said ``affordable.'' Frankly, if it costs $31 billion and you do that over 14 years, that is a couple of billion a year. I think that is a good investment. I think it would be done a lot more economically than that. Should we not make an investment? Is that not really what the Federal Government is all about, protecting our freedom, protecting our country, protecting our people? When we find out we are defenseless against intercontinental ballistic missiles, we do not have the capability to shoot them down, do we not owe it to our country to invest in a system to destroy these missiles before they get in our backyard? If you have a weapon such as a nuclear warhead, it does not do any good to destroy it over your city, before it reaches the target. Then it is too late. It would maximize damage. If it is biological, the same is true, as well as with a chemical weapon. You do not gain anything destroying it just before it hits the target. You need to destroy it well before it gets into your backyard. We would like to have the opportunity to utilize the technology advances that we have in this country to be able to defend our country. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration and Democrats in the Senate, with one exception, have said ``No, we are not going to do it. We want to worship at the altar of a treaty from 1972 that says we are not going to defend ourselves.'' Now, the 1972 treaty does allow you to have at least 100 interceptors, and it also says you can renegotiate. That is really what we are saying we would do. We do not abrogate, we do not violate the ABM Treaty under the Defend America Act. I am bothered by the fact that our colleagues would play politics with an issue so important as defending American citizens. I am bothered by the fact that this administration finds it politically acceptable to develop anti-missile systems for Israel, but not the United States. That bothers me. It bothers me when I read statements by high-level officials in China talking about the possibility of destroying Los Angeles, and we do not have the capability to avoid that should they be irrational enough to ever try to carry out such a threat. It bothers me when I see 25 nations around the world, many of which are not real friends of the United States, seeking earnestly to develop intercontinental ballistic missile technology with a variety of warheads that could threaten not only the United States, but our allies, and we do not do anything to give us defense capabilities. That is what Senator Dole was trying to do with the Defend America Act today. That is what Senator Wallop, who was one of the real leaders in trying to develop strategic defense initiative for years, was trying to do. We have a significant investment that this country has made, and now we have an administration that says: We do not think there will be a threat for 15 years, so let us not do anything. Or let us develop missile systems, and we will pay for three-fourths of it in Israel because, politically, that is popular. Why is it not popular in the United States if we want to help Israel defend itself? I was in Israel prior to the Persian Gulf war, and I urged the administration to get Patriot missiles over there to shoot down the Scuds. It partially worked. But the Patriot is certainly not good enough for an ICBM. We can develop systems to shoot down in-coming missiles before they get in our back yards. We should do it. If it is an investment of a couple of billion dollars, or $4 billion, or $31 billion over the next 14 years, that is a good investment for protecting the American people, our interests and our cities. We should do it. Yet, unfortunately, our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle say, no, they are going to protect President Clinton and play politics. President Clinton does not want it, so we are not going to do it. I think that is a serious, serious mistake. We should not play politics with the security of the American people and American interests. I am afraid that is what happened today. I regret that decision. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Georgia for his leadership on this issue, and also for his statement earlier. In addition, I compliment the Senator from Illinois for his leadership, for his cosponsoring this resolution, not just today but last year, not just last year but the year before. For several years Senator Simon has been a leader in saying we should pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. He is right. He also makes it bipartisan, which is awfully important. I would support this amendment if it was offered by the Democrats. If you had a Democrat in the White House or a Republican in the White House or an Independent, this amendment should pass. It has passed in the Senate before. We actually passed this amendment in August 1982. It passed when Republicans gained control of the Senate for the first time. It passed with 69 votes, 69 to 31. The House never passed it. The House tried that year but they failed. They came up short. Then, after we had Republican control of both Houses, the House passed it. And I compliment the House. They passed it on January 26, 1995. The Senate again considered it and, unfortunately, it failed by one vote. Actually the final vote was 65-35. Everyone knows it takes 67 votes, but Senator Dole moved to reconsider it, which he has that right to do, so we can have another try at it. I compliment him for doing so. I believe this week we will have another chance to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I remember when we had this debate some of our colleagues said, ``I believe in a balanced budget, I just do not think we have to have a constitutional amendment.'' But I remember reading some remarks that were made by some people on the other side of the aisle that said we need a constitutional amendment. They voted for it. Actually, on March 1, 1994, I had a resolution that said we should pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Several of our colleagues on the Democrat side at that time supported it. But in 1995, when it was for real, after it had already passed the House, they voted no. That is unfortunate. You might say, why did they vote no? President Clinton was against it. I wish he was not against it. Everybody in America should know that President Clinton was against a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. If he were in favor of it, I am sure some of our colleagues who did not vote for it would vote to pass it and we could pass it this week. And we should pass it this week. Maybe there will be an election conversion. I think we have noticed a great deal of flexibility on the part of President Clinton on a lot of issues. Maybe on this issue he would see the wisdom, supported by 80- some-odd percent of the American people who say we should have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Most all States have something like this in their constitutions. That happens to work. And we need it in our Constitution. I look at the words of one of our forefathers, Thomas Jefferson, who said, in 1798: I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for reduction of the administration of our Government to the genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. Thomas Jefferson, 1798. He was exactly right. I have seen Government spending grow a lot, even since I have been here. If you look at the total amount of Government spending: In 1960 we spent less than $100 billion, in 1970 we spent less than $200 billion, by 1980 we spent almost triple that and went to about $600 billion so you see it growing rather substantially. By 1990 it grew to over $1.2 trillion, and last year we spent over $1.5 trillion. So we have seen spending grow, and grow dramatically. The present occupant of the Chair, Senator Kyl from Arizona, said: Wait a minute, we should have a limitation, a limitation on taxes. I figure maybe a limitation on spending. But we both see the growth of Government growing substantially. For every dollar that Government spends, we have to take it away from the American people, either in the form of taxes today, and/or in borrowing, both of which are taking money from the private sector and putting it in the hands of the public sector. I happen to think that is part of the problem, because I think that the private sector can spend money a lot better. Families can spend the money a lot better than Government can, than bureaucrats can. I happen to think families care a lot more about education than the bureaucrats in the Department of Education. I think families are a lot more interested in the health of their families than some bureaucrat in the Department of Health and Human Services. I think families are a lot more concerned, families and local communities, about welfare than the massive bureaucracy that we now have, that has 334 federally controlled, Federal defined, federally determined benefits of welfare. I think States and local groups can do a lot better job in job training than when we have 156 different Federal job training programs. They are stacked on top of each other. That is the reason we see spending just going through the roof. So we need to reform it. How can we do it? If we have the majority votes we do not need a constitutional amendment. Maybe not a simple majority, maybe we need 60 votes because in the Senate sometimes it takes 60 to pass legislation. That is unfortunate. We passed a balanced budget resolution earlier, last month. It was a good resolution. It does lead us. It shows how we can get to a balanced budget in 6 years; not in 7 years, in 6 years. I support that. I think it is a giant step in the right direction. Some people would say President Clinton offered a balanced budget, and is that not good? I would say it is a marked contrast to what he offered a year ago in January, which had $200 billion deficits forever. So we are making progress. But if you look at the details you realize his budget is not really balanced. The Senator from Arizona quoted the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, who says, ``No, it does not come into balance. Actually his budget, by the year 2002, has an $81 billion deficit unless you have automatic tax increases.'' So, if the economy does not perform as well as President Clinton had anticipated, instead of having automatic spending reductions he has automatic tax increases. I do not think that is a good idea. Then, if you look at some of the other things he has in his budget, they are purely smoke and mirrors. He plays games with Medicare, taking home health care and moving that away from Medicare part A, moving it out, $55 billion. That is surely a charade. He cannot be serious. But we do have a serious budget. Some of our colleagues said, ``I support a balanced budget, not the amendment, but I support a balanced budget.'' Well, we passed a balanced budget and we did show, yes, we would cut actually some discretionary spending--it is almost a freeze--but little more than a freeze in discretionary spending. Take the total amount we spend on discretionary spending, about one- third of the budget. We spend $1.5 trillion, a little over that, one- third of that is discretionary spending. We basically freeze that for 6 years. We cut a little bit more than that from a freeze. President Clinton spends more than a freeze, and he cuts a lot more in defense. But we make that. Then we curb the growth of some entitlement programs. Some people are really playing scare tactics, trying to scare senior citizens saying, ``Wait a minute, those policies the Republicans have, they're not fair, they're not realistic, they're cutting Medicare too much.'' It is totally false. For example, in Medicare in 1996, we are spending $186 billion. Under our budget in 2002, that figure increases to $279 billion. That is an increase of 42 percent. That is not a cut. That is not a cut. If you look at per capita, last year it was $4,800 per senior. By the year 2002, it is going to be over $2,000 more. That is not a cut. If you go from less than $5,000 and you are spending $7,000, that is over a $2,000 increase per capita in Medicare alone under our budget. What do we do? We keep Medicare solvent for at least 10 years. President Clinton does not do that. Medicare is going to go broke. Those are just the facts. He may want to put the facts off, but you cannot fool the people. Actually, Medicare in the first 6 months of this year paid out $4.2 billion more than it took in. You cannot do that indefinitely. You cannot sit back and just let that happen. If that happens, then Medicare is going to be broke and the hospitals and doctors will not be paid. To me, that is not responsible. Some people may want to play politics and they may think that is going to help them in elections, but I found seniors in my State of Oklahoma are very realistic. When you tell them the facts, they are very mature and very willing to do what is necessary to save the system. Certainly, when you tell them, ``Wait a minute, Medicare is going to grow from $4,800 to $7,000,'' they do not think that is a cut. What about welfare, Medicaid spending? Actually, in 1996, Medicaid spending was $95.7 billion. Under our proposal, in the year 2002, it grows to $139.5 billion. That is a 46 percent increase. That is not a cut. Medicaid goes up 46 percent in the next 6 years. That is not a cut. So I just make those two points, Mr. President, because a lot of people say, ``They are slashing the budget.'' Actually, we do not slash the budget. In 1996, we spent $1.57 trillion. In this one year what is estimated to be spent is $1.57 trillion. In the year 2002, we are going to be spending $1.846 trillion. That is an increase of $271 billion, or 2.7 percent per year. So spending grows every single year. Entitlement spending grows every single year, and we are able to save and keep Medicare solvent for 10 years. And we are able to deliver a balanced budget. And we are able to give some tax relief to American families. We are able to tell families, almost all working families with incomes less than $100,000 in America, if they have children, they will get a $500 tax credit per child. That is in our budget. That is our statement that we really and truly believe American families can spend this money better than Washington, DC, and we can do that and balance the budget. I have heard President Clinton say he supports a tax credit for children. He campaigned on it in 1992, but he did not deliver it in 1993, 1994, or 1995. As a matter of fact, in 1993, instead of giving a tax reduction, as he campaigned for, he gave the largest tax increase in history, and he hit American families right between the eyes. He gave an increase in gasoline taxes, an increase for families that are on Social Security income, and a big hit on other families. That is not fair, that is not right, that is not what he campaigned on. Actually, he campaigned, and in his book said, ``We're against increasing gasoline excise taxes.'' Lo and behold, if you look at his tax increase in 1993, there was an increase in gasoline taxes. Now he says he would be willing to support reducing them temporarily. To me that is not good enough. It shows very much a strong inconsistency on the part of the President. Maybe he was not telling the truth. Maybe he did not level with the American people, but he did exactly the opposite of what he said he was going to do. In his book, he said he was opposed to gasoline tax increases, and in his tax increase, it had a 4.3-cent gasoline tax increase. The total net amount of tax reduction that we have under the budget proposal that has already passed is $122 billion. President Clinton's net tax reduction in 6 years on his so-called budget is $6 billion. There is no net tax cut for American families under President Clinton's proposal. I think that is unfortunate. We do have a balanced budget proposal. We do have a road map on how we can get there. We should do it. Thomas Jefferson was exactly right-- exactly right. I just hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will look at this and ask, ``What is in the best interest of the United States? Should we not pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget?" I think we should, and we should do it this week. Thomas Jefferson was right, Mr. President. I hope that our colleagues will reconsider. I am proud of the Senators on this side of the aisle. We had 98 percent of the Republicans, all but one, voted for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I hope that we will have that strong support on this side of the aisle, and I hope a few of our colleagues who supported a constitutional amendment to balance the budget in the past will likewise vote for it this time and give the American people what they really want. And that is a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I just urge my colleagues to vote to table the Kennedy amendment for a lot of reasons. The provisions that he is dealing with deals with Davis-Bacon, goes back to 1931, the Federal Government saying if you are doing Federal construction work, that the Department of Labor should set the labor rate, in many cases far in excess of what the prevailing wage really is in those areas. It costs taxpayers in excess of $3 billion. Maybe it is a payoff for, I do not know, $35 million for campaigns or something. It does not belong. If you believe in free enterprise, if you believe in the marketplace setting labor rates, you should vote to table the Kennedy amendment. I move to table the Kennedy amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill called the Defense of Marriage Act. It is a simple measure, limited in scope and based on common sense. It does just two things. The Defense of Marriage Act defines the words ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' for purposes of Federal law and allows each State to decide for itself with respect to same-sex marriages. Most Americans will have a hard time understanding how our country has come to the point where such simple and traditional terms as ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' need to be defined in Federal law. But under challenge from courts, lawsuits and an erosion of values, we find ourselves at the point today that this legislation is needed. This bill says that marriage is the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. There is nothing earth-shattering there. No breaking of new ground. No setting of new precedents. No revocation of rights. Indeed, these provisions simply reaffirm what is already known, what is already in place, and what is already in practice from a policy perspective. This legislation seems quite unexciting yet it may still draw criticism. I do hope everyone will read and understand the scope of the legislation before drawing any conclusions. The definitions are based on common understandings rooted in our Nation's history, our statutes and our case law. They merely reaffirm what Americans have meant for 200 years when using the words ``marriage'' and ``spouse.'' The current United States Code does not contain a definition of marriage, presumably because most Americans know what it means and never imagined challenges such as those we are facing today. This bill does not change State law, but allows each State to decide for itself with respect to same-sex marriage. It does this by exercising Congress's powers under the Constitution to legislate with respect to the full faith and credit clause. It provides that no State shall be required to give effect to any public act of any other State respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State. The Defense of Marriage Act is necessary for several reasons. In May 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court rendered a preliminary ruling in favor of three same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses. The court said the marriage law was discriminatory and violated their rights under the equal-rights clause of the State constitution. Many States are concerned that another State's recognition of same- sex marriages will compromise their own law prohibiting such marriages. According to a March 11, 1996, Washington Times article, ``legislators in 24 States have introduced bills to deny recognition of same-sex marriage. Two States--Utah and South Dakota--have already approved such laws, and 17 other states are now grappling with the issue--including Hawaii, where legislative leaders are fighting to block their own supreme court from sanctioning such marriages.'' Several other States have passed such laws since this article was written. This bill would address this issue head on and allow States to make the final determination concerning same-sex marriages without other States' law interfering. Another reason this bill is needed now, concerns Federal benefits. The Federal Government extends benefits, rights, and privileges to persons who are married, and generally accepts a State's definition of marriage. This bill will help the Federal Government defend its own traditional and common-sense definitions of ``marriage'' and ``spouse.'' If, for example, Hawaii gives new meaning to the words ``marriage'' and ``spouse,'' the reverberations may be felt throughout the Federal Code unless this bill is enacted. Another example of why we need a Federal definition of the terms ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' stems from experience during debate on the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Shortly before passage of this act, I attached an amendment that defined ``spouse'' as ``a husband or wife, as the case may be.'' When the Secretary of Labor published his proposed regulations, a considerable number of comments were received urging that the definition of ``spouse'' be ``broadened to include domestic partners in committed relationships, including same-sex relationships.'' When the Secretary issued the final rules he stated that the definition of ``spouse'' and the legislative history precluded such a broadening of the definition. This amendment, which was unanimously adopted, spared a great deal of costly and unnecessary litigation over the definition of spouse. These are just a few reasons for why we need to enact the Defense of Marriage Act. Enactment of this bill will allow States to give full and fair consideration of how they wish to address the issue of same-sex marriages instead of rushing to legislate because of fear that another State's laws may be imposed upon them. It also will eliminate legal uncertainty concerning Federal benefits, and make it clear what is meant when the words ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' are used in the Federal Code. This effort hardly seems to be news as it reaffirms current practice and policy, but surely somehow, somewhere given today's climate, it will be. I believe the fact that it will be news--that some may even consider this legislation controversial--should make the average American stop and take stock of where we are as a country and where we want to go. Apathy and indifference among the American people is one of the great threats to our Nation's future. This legislation is important. It is about the defense of marriage as an institution and as the backbone of the American family. I urge my colleagues and fellow Americans to join me in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. I ask unanimous consent that the following two factsheets be included in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill called the Defense of Marriage Act. It is a simple measure, limited in scope and based on common sense. It does just two things. The Defense of Marriage Act defines the words ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' for purposes of Federal law and allows each State to decide for itself with respect to same-sex marriages. Most Americans will have a hard time understanding how our country has come to the point where such simple and traditional terms as ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' need to be defined in Federal law. But under challenge from courts, lawsuits and an erosion of values, we find ourselves at the point today that this legislation is needed. This bill says that marriage is the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. There is nothing earth-shattering there. No breaking of new ground. No setting of new precedents. No revocation of rights. Indeed, these provisions simply reaffirm what is already known, what is already in place, and what is already in practice from a policy perspective. This legislation seems quite unexciting yet it may still draw criticism. I do hope everyone will read and understand the scope of the legislation before drawing any conclusions. The definitions are based on common understandings rooted in our Nation's history, our statutes and our case law. They merely reaffirm what Americans have meant for 200 years when using the words ``marriage'' and ``spouse.'' The current United States Code does not contain a definition of marriage, presumably because most Americans know what it means and never imagined challenges such as those we are facing today. This bill does not change State law, but allows each State to decide for itself with respect to same-sex marriage. It does this by exercising Congress's powers under the Constitution to legislate with respect to the full faith and credit clause. It provides that no State shall be required to give effect to any public act of any other State respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State. The Defense of Marriage Act is necessary for several reasons. In May 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court rendered a preliminary ruling in favor of three same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses. The court said the marriage law was discriminatory and violated their rights under the equal-rights clause of the State constitution. Many States are concerned that another State's recognition of same- sex marriages will compromise their own law prohibiting such marriages. According to a March 11, 1996, Washington Times article, ``legislators in 24 States have introduced bills to deny recognition of same-sex marriage. Two States--Utah and South Dakota--have already approved such laws, and 17 other states are now grappling with the issue--including Hawaii, where legislative leaders are fighting to block their own supreme court from sanctioning such marriages.'' Several other States have passed such laws since this article was written. This bill would address this issue head on and allow States to make the final determination concerning same-sex marriages without other States' law interfering. Another reason this bill is needed now, concerns Federal benefits. The Federal Government extends benefits, rights, and privileges to persons who are married, and generally accepts a State's definition of marriage. This bill will help the Federal Government defend its own traditional and common-sense definitions of ``marriage'' and ``spouse.'' If, for example, Hawaii gives new meaning to the words ``marriage'' and ``spouse,'' the reverberations may be felt throughout the Federal Code unless this bill is enacted. Another example of why we need a Federal definition of the terms ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' stems from experience during debate on the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Shortly before passage of this act, I attached an amendment that defined ``spouse'' as ``a husband or wife, as the case may be.'' When the Secretary of Labor published his proposed regulations, a considerable number of comments were received urging that the definition of ``spouse'' be ``broadened to include domestic partners in committed relationships, including same-sex relationships.'' When the Secretary issued the final rules he stated that the definition of ``spouse'' and the legislative history precluded such a broadening of the definition. This amendment, which was unanimously adopted, spared a great deal of costly and unnecessary litigation over the definition of spouse. These are just a few reasons for why we need to enact the Defense of Marriage Act. Enactment of this bill will allow States to give full and fair consideration of how they wish to address the issue of same-sex marriages instead of rushing to legislate because of fear that another State's laws may be imposed upon them. It also will eliminate legal uncertainty concerning Federal benefits, and make it clear what is meant when the words ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' are used in the Federal Code. This effort hardly seems to be news as it reaffirms current practice and policy, but surely somehow, somewhere given today's climate, it will be. I believe the fact that it will be news--that some may even consider this legislation controversial--should make the average American stop and take stock of where we are as a country and where we want to go. Apathy and indifference among the American people is one of the great threats to our Nation's future. This legislation is important. It is about the defense of marriage as an institution and as the backbone of the American family. I urge my colleagues and fellow Americans to join me in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. I ask unanimous consent that the following two factsheets be included in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a couple of charts printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES. I urge my colleagues to just look at the growth in these taxes. The payroll taxes alone have just exploded. If I put in the maximum total contribution under payroll taxes, in 1960 that total for Social Security--this includes hospital or Medicare taxes--the maximum tax that anybody put in 1960 was $144. Keep in mind, the system started quite a bit earlier, but the maximum tax was $144. In 1970, the maximum tax was $374. This is just for the employee. The employer has to match this. In 1980, it really increased substantially and went from $374 in 1970 to $1,588 in 1980. Wow, it went up about four, five times. Between 1980 and 1990 it went from $1,588 to almost $4,000--$3,924. Keep in mind, your employer is matching that. So for an individual--that is maximum; in that case somebody was making $135,000, I think--they were paying almost $4,000 and the employer was paying almost $4,000. That is $8,000, a big increase. It continues to explode. By the year 2000, for that person still making $135,000 it goes up to $6,496, almost $6,500, with a total cost of $13,000 put in for a person to pay these Social Security taxes. My point being, this is just a payroll tax. But this tables shows, if you look at it on a curve, that Social Security taxes have gone up tremendously. The same thing for Medicare taxes, they just exploded. Yet, the Medicare fund is still going broke. Yet, Social Security still has a real funding problem. In the year 2013 it is estimated to pay out more than it takes in. So my point is, Mr. President, some people want to ignore payroll taxes. I disagree. Ask any wage earner--ask my son; ask my daughter-- who are paying these taxes. These taxes are high and they are getting higher. That means people have to work longer before they can take enough home to take care of their needs and their family and their future. So, Mr. President, I think we have to be cognizant of the American working family. I am very critical of President Clinton for vetoing our tax reduction effort and for pushing through the largest tax increase in history. He is responsible for the fact that a lot of people have to work a lot longer for Government instead of themselves. We need to reverse that. I hope that Congress this year, soon, will pass tax reduction for American families. I thank my colleague from Georgia and I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my friend from Georgia for his leadership on this and many other issues. Today, we are announcing to the American people that tomorrow, May 7, is tax freedom day. That means that the average American worker had to work from January 1 through May 7 for government--for the Federal Government, State government, and local government. May 7 is the latest tax freedom day ever. For the average American worker, 34.8 percent of their income goes to government. I do not make this point to say that all government is evil. Not all government is evil, but if workers are working for government, they are not working for themselves. As government power grows and increases, that means their freedom is diminished. If you have individuals working a third of the time for government, then they are not working for their families, and they are not able to take care of their families. It is a very important and, in my opinion, kind of a sad fact that as government power continues to increase, people's freedom continues to decrease. We need to reverse that. Unfortunately, this President has made it worse. This President has made tax freedom day later and later in the year because he vetoed a tax reduction effort that Congress passed. But even more important than that, he signed the largest tax increase in history. In 1993, President Clinton signed a tax bill that increased taxes and user fees $265 billion over 5 years, the largest tax increase in history. Keep in mind, President Clinton as a candidate said he was going to cut taxes. I remember when he was campaigning in New Hampshire. He said something like, ``Yes, we're going to have a tax reduction for families; we're going to have a per-child tax credit.'' He did not deliver. He never said anything on the campaign trail in 1992 about increasing gasoline taxes, but that is exactly what he did. As a matter of fact, during his first year in office, not only did he pass the largest tax increase in history, but passed a tax increase that hit all American families. At the time they were playing class warfare and saying this was just going to hit the rich--and it did, they hit the rich pretty hard, but they also raised taxes on all Americans. But also there is a gasoline tax. A gasoline tax is not just for the wealthy; that is for anybody who drives a car. I have four kids, all of whom are driving and paying that 4.3 cents a gallon. It is not inexpensive. It makes a difference. My point being, President Clinton's tax increase hit all American families. He increased taxes on couples who receive Social Security. Their Social Security used to be taxed at 50 percent. He increased it to 85 percent, a big hit for individuals who had incomes above $34,000. A big tax increase. I remember listening to my father-in-law, who was adversely affected by this. It cost him well over $1,000 a year. Thank you very much, President Clinton. He did not ask for that with his vote, and he was not told during the campaign that he was going to have a big tax increase, and certainly he was middle-income America. My point being, President Clinton, instead of reducing the tax burden on American families, has increased the tax burden. Now today total tax receipts will hit a record 19.4 percent of the gross domestic product, the highest level of taxation since 1982. Ronald Reagan brought it down. His tax cuts did not go into effect really until 1983. So now we have taxes going up because of President Clinton, because of his tax increase. A lot of us believe President Clinton was right in Houston when he said, ``You know, I think I raised taxes too much,'' or ``You might be surprised to find I agree with you, I think I raised taxes too much.'' A lot of us agreed with him, and so we wanted to help correct that. Last year, we did pass a balanced budget package that not only balanced the budget but offered modest tax relief for American families. We delivered on our promise. We said, ``We're going to give tax relief to children. We're going to give a $500 tax credit for families with children under the age of 18.'' President Clinton said he was going to do the same thing in 1992, but he did not deliver. In his proposal before Congress, he said, ``I have a children's tax credit too,'' but what he does not tell people is the children only get the tax credit if they are up to age 12, not if they are 13, 14, 15, 16. I hate to tell the President this, but they cost a lot of money at those ages, too. As a matter of fact, it is at those ages that you may start getting ready for college. The Republican budget allowed individuals, if they have kids, to save $500 per child, and the families get to keep it. So the families get to make decisions on education. If the families want to, they can take the $500 and put it into a savings account to save for that child's education. President Clinton vetoed it. President Clinton vetoed a tax bill that would have helped the economy. We would have reduced the tax on capital gains, because we know that not only will that raise more money for the Federal Government, but it will help stimulate the economy. The capital gains tax is really a tax on a capital transaction. If it is reduced--and the United States has one of the highest taxes on capital gains of any of the industrialized countries--if we reduce it, we are going to have more transactions, more capital moving throughout the economy, more capital going where it can be used most efficiently, most effectively and it will help stimulate the economy. President Kennedy did that in the early sixties, and it helped. It raised more money. President Kennedy was right when he said a rising tide will lift all boats, and the Republican majority wanted to do that. But President Clinton vetoed it, and he was wrong in vetoing it. Congress passed a reduction in the inheritance tax for farmers and family business owners, and others, so they could keep more of their hard-earned money, so they would not have to sell their estate to pay an inheritance tax, a very positive provision, supported overwhelmingly by this Congress. President Clinton vetoed it, and he was wrong in doing so. Congress passed enhanced IRA's, individual retirement accounts, so we could encourage people to save. We would use the Tax Code to help people start saving for their retirement: ``Don't depend solely on Social Security; don't depend solely on a company retirement account; save for your retirement.'' We enhanced that. We doubled, basically, the income at which people would be eligible to receive a tax deduction for their IRA contribution. This was really a family benefit, and it was really a family benefit for middle-income workers. The benefit right now applies to people with incomes of about some $20,000. We doubled that amount. It would not help the very wealthy, but it certainly would have helped the hard-working wage earner who wanted to start saving more, and we do not save near enough in this country. Congress passed medical savings accounts, because we recognized that a lot of people do not get benefits from the Tax Code to encourage health care, and medical savings accounts would have allowed individuals the opportunity to put in some before-tax dollars to help pay for health care costs. If you work for a big corporation, you do not need it because maybe the big corporation pays for all your health care and the individual gets it tax free. Congress helped the self-employed. We increased the self-employed deduction from 30 to 50 percent. Recently, we just passed legislation to increase that to 80 percent. But under our bill, we had medical savings accounts that also would have helped the individual who does not work. They need some help too. This would have helped them pay for their health care. It was good policy. Unfortunately, the President vetoed it. Congress passed a provision that would have phased out and eliminated the so-called marriage penalty, where right now it is financially to a couple's detriment, if you have two wage earners, to file a joint return, to file as a married couple. It makes no sense. It is wrong. It is inequitable. The Tax Code should not be encouraging divorce or separate filings. Congress phased the penalty out. Unfortunately, the President vetoed it. Congress passed spousal IRA's, recognizing that spouses work, whether it is at a job or at home--we know that they are working. So we had spousal IRA's so the spouse could also accumulate some money and savings in their own name, a very positive provision that would have helped a lot of people all across the country. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed it. Well, he was wrong in vetoing that. Mr. President, taxes are too high. Government does spend too much money. People should not have to work 34.8 percent of their time for government. So we do need tax relief. We need to balance the budget. Some people say, those are in contrary positions to each other. I do not think so. Certainly not. If you take a position that we have to balance the budget before we have any tax cuts you will never pass any tax cuts because people in this Congress will keep spending more money. There is no limit to the appetite of some people in Congress and this administration for spending money. You are a lot more popular spending money than you are taking it away. So I do not agree with that philosophy--and I am probably as frugal or as fiscally conservative as anybody--but I think we should give tax relief and balance the budget and do it simultaneously. Let us balance the budget. Let us limit the revenue of the Government. Let us pass a constitutional amendment that says you cannot spend any more than you take in. That makes sense. That is what most Americans do. The House passed a balanced budget constitutional amendment last year. The Senate came one vote short. I hope that soon, maybe this week, we will again be considering a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I hope some of my colleagues who voted against that balanced budget amendment will reconsider. Some of our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle said, ``Well, I'm not going to vote for the balanced budget amendment until I see a real balanced budget plan.'' I think we ought to do it anyway. We did it anyway in Congress, but unfortunately the President vetoed it. I hope now they realize it can be done. I have heard President Clinton now say that he supports a balanced budget. I hope that my colleagues on the Democrat side, most all of whom voted against a balanced budget amendment, will reconsider. I want to compliment Senator Simon, and others, who are working to try and make that happen. It has to be a bipartisan vote to make it happen. We have to have 67 votes. I hope my colleagues realize the gravity of the situation. We cannot continue to pile up debt after debt. We passed entitlement reform last year, but the President vetoed it. I think he was wrong in doing so. I am afraid it is going to take a constitutional mandate to tell us we cannot spend any more than we take in and that we have sound fiscal policies in this country. I think at the same time, we need to be cognizant of the fact that taxpayers are taking it on the chin. Taxpayers need relief. Taxpayers are kind of bothered by the fact that they have to work over a third of the time, an average American family has to work over a third of the year for Government; not for themselves, not for their family and not for their family's future, but for Uncle Sam and for State government and for local government. We need to reverse that. Mr. President, I am going to put a couple of tables into the Record because I think a lot of times people are not aware of how fast Government spending and taxation is growing. One of them that I am going to allude to maybe surprises people, but it deals with payroll taxes. Payroll taxes have been skyrocketing. I heard some people say maybe it should be exempt from the constitutional amendment or maybe we should not count Social Security or Medicare because those are trust funds. Mr. President, those programs are funded by payroll taxes. If you work, and you get your W- 2, you find Uncle Sam takes out individual income taxes, and he also takes out payroll taxes for Social Security and for Medicare's hospital fund. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 2 minutes.