Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to submit a concurrent resolution designating Hermann Monument and Hermann Heights Park in New Ulm, Minnesota, as national symbols of the contributions of Americans of German Heritage. I would like to thank Congressman David Minge and the other members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation for introducing a similar resolution in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, I'd be surprised if anyone in this chamber has heard of Hermann Monument, but I would like to take a few minutes to explain its significance to the City of New Ulm, the State of Minnesota, and Americans of German Heritage across the United States. The Hermann Monument was erected in 1889 as a tribute to German immigrants to the United States. It honors Hermann the Cheruscan, who forged the creation of a united Germany by defeating three Roman Legions who had occupied the area now known as Germany. Hermann remains a symbol of German history, culture, dedication, and perseverance. The Hermann Monument, made of copper sheeting riveted to a steel interior frame, was dedicated in New Ulm, Minnesota, on September 25, 1897. It stands 102 feet tall and is the second largest copper statue in the United States, behind only the Statue of Liberty. The Hermann monument remains the only memorial in the United States dedicated to German heritage and the contributions to American culture, arts, industry, and government. I believe it's also important to note that there are now almost 58,000,000 individuals of German heritage living in the United States, comprising nearly 25 percent of our nation's population. That number makes German-Americans the largest ethnic group in the United States. In Minnesota, the number doubles to roughly 50 percent of Minnesotans being of German heritage. Today, however, the Hermann Monument faces a serious threat from over 100 years of rain, wind, heat, humidity, hail and other challenges that have rendered the monument in need of restoration. Thankfully, the people of New Ulm have formed the Hermann Monument Renovation Project to raise the roughly $1.75 million needed to restore the monument and construct an Interpretive Center at its base. Mr. President, the legislation Senator Wellstone and I are introducing provides no funding for the restoration of the Hermann Monument. In fact, the Resolution costs the Federal Government nothing. Instead, our Resolution simply recognizes the Hermann Monument as a national symbol of the contributions of German Americans and gives the restoration project a boost in the arm. Our Resolution is a way for every member of the Senate to recognize the contributions of German Americans across the country. It doesn't preclude another such designation in the United States nor does it designate the Hermann Monument as the only National symbol for German Americans. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me, Senator Wellstone, the Minnesota Congressional Delegation, the Society of German-American Studies, the Steuben Society of America, the City of New Ulm, and the people of Minnesota in supporting this Resolution recognizing the contributions of German Americans and the national significance of New Ulm's Hermann Monument.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak for a few minutes about National Park Week and the value of National Parks to our nation's citizens. As families and individuals throughout our nation know, America's national parks are the envy of the world and considered by many to be our national treasures. In our nation's parks, wildlife flourish, scenic beauty remains abundant, and families escape the pressures of everyday life. Our parks are truly one of our nation's best investments--an investment that will provide generations of Americans with the same recreational and educational opportunities we now enjoy. President Clinton has designated April 17-23, 2000, as National Park Week. The National Park Service now estimates that over 285 million Americans visit our 378 national parks every year. At each site, visitors find themselves confronted with important moments in our nation's history, wonderful natural scenic sites, and cultural treasures which remind us of our distinguished, and sometimes difficult, past. Our parks, in many ways, are a microcosm of our nation and of ourselves, and they continue to document for future generations those qualities about America which must be preserved for eternity. In the 105th Congress, I was proud that Congress took a significant step forward in updating the management of our Nation's parks and improving visitor services by passing the ``Vision 2020 National Park System Restoration Act,'' a bill I cosponsored. The Vision 2020 Bill, authored by Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming, is a commonsense approach to improving both the management and facilities of national parks by bringing everyone to the table and seeking consensus. The passage of the Vision 2020 bill was an important first step toward bringing accountability to park management, addressing the tremendous backlog of park projects, and improving visitor services. I was also proud to obtain $2 million in last year's appropriations bills for the National Park Service's portion of the Mississippi River National Center in Minnesota's new Science Museum. The exhibit will include information on the importance of the Mississippi River to Minnesota's array of interests. This is a partnership between the Park Service and the Science Museum that will give Minnesotans a greater appreciation for all aspects of recreation and commerce on the Mississippi River. My home state of Minnesota is home to five units of the National Park Service. They are Voyageurs National Park, which on April 8 celebrated its 25th anniversary, Pipestone National Monument, Grand Portage National Monument, the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, and the Saint Croix National Riverway. I've urged Minnesotans to visit these sites during this week and to gain a greater appreciation for opportunities they offer. Mr. President, our parks remain one of America's most important legacies for future generations and a constant reminder of the progress, splendor, and triumphs of our past.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I proudly rise today to pay tribute to the University of Minnesota women's hockey team on their recent national championship victory. This is truly an accomplishment of which all Minnesotans can be proud. In only its third season, the Golden Gopher program has become a national powerhouse. In 1998, the Gopher's inaugural year, the team finished fourth in the nation. Last year, they crept closer to the national title with a third-place finish. This season's 32-6-1 record was the best in the nation. Under the leadership of coach Laura Halldorson, the Gopher women defeated instate rival University of Minnesota-Duluth in the semifinals, 3-2, after being down 2-0. This come-from-behind victory gave the Golden Gophers a berth in the American Women's College Hockey Alliance National Championship game versus top-seeded Brown University. The March 25 championship game at Boston's Matthews Arena proved to be a tough-fought contest. The Gopher women fell behind by a score of 1-0 in the first period, but once again made a strong comeback. Led by goalie Erica Killewald's 34 stopped shots, in the Gophers held off Brown for a 4-2 victory. While this incredible season was clearly the result of phenomenal teamwork, there are individual efforts that should be recognized. Gopher goalie Erica Killewald's spectacular performance earned her the tournament MVP honors. Also awarded all-tournament honors were Nadine Muzerall, Winny Brodt and Courtney Kennedy. As the popularity of women's hockey spreads throughout the nation, Minnesotans have embraced the sport--and their Golden Gophers. Now the program is poised to lead the charge towards greater advancements in women's athletics. I commend the women's dedication and relentless hard work. With only one graduating senior on this year's Gopher squad, I am hopeful for many more national championships.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. The Senator from Idaho is correct. Two young people who we care deeply about, one a dedicated employee in my office and one an employee in the office of the Senator from Idaho, are among the latest victims of this insidious provision of the Tax Code. One of my legislative assistants is a young man from Minnesota. He worked for me in Minnesota and also here in Washington, DC, for over 5 years. He is engaged to be married to a young woman in the office of the Senator from Idaho, a native of Idaho who has worked in my colleague's office for almost 3 years. This young couple, very much similar to other couples all around the Nation, is moved by faithful affections, shared values, common life goals to become a family. But the Federal Tax Code is saying something different to this young couple.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to follow the Senator from Texas and talk about one of the most important issues we are going to be considering this week. Especially for young families, this could be one of the most important issues we are going to vote on maybe this year. That is the question of waiving the marriage tax penalty. The Senator from Texas has done an excellent job in laying out some of the concerns, some of the questions, and some of the boundaries of how this is imposed and who is paying this tax. Is it a fair tax? When you make a commitment to somebody to get married, should you also have to somehow make a commitment to Uncle Sam? And that commitment is to pay higher taxes. That is not fair. It would be like going into a store and buying a suit. The suit is $100. And they ask: Are you married? You say yes. They say: Well, that will be $150. Why would we pay more? Why would we penalize someone just because they are married or if they are single? I also want to give a lot of credit to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the other Senator from Texas, for all the work over these last couple of weeks--working with her and others to highlight the problems with the marriage penalty, whom it affects, and how much money it really means to those couples. We just held a news conference outside the Capitol. Among those speaking were, of course, representatives of a number of groups that represent working families across this country that are there supporting it, along with the Senators who were there to support it; but I think most importantly there were three couples who also came to tell their story, why they thought getting rid of this marriage tax penalty was so important, how they urged Congress to pass this bill, and not only urged the Congress to pass it but urged President Clinton to sign this into law. Their stories were about young couples with one child and expecting another and how, after they are married, they look at the tax forms and find because they are married--young families not making a lot of money--their tax this year is going to be about $1,100 more because they are married--nearly $100 in penalty every month for this young couple. Another couple from Maryland talked about the penalty they have--well over $1,400 a year. Again, why? Because they are married. Go to the Tax Code, to the page referring to you, and look down the lines, and if you are married, there is a penalty. As one man said, at many weddings across the country today there is an uninvited guest. That uninvited guest is the tax man. He says: Good, you are getting married; when you fill out your tax forms this year, you will pay more to Washington in taxes. Some in the Senate who say we don't need to repeal this marriage tax penalty. As Senator Gramm of Texas says, some say they are rich people; they can afford to pay this tax. Don't give them this break. They are rich. They are the ones who are advocating somehow Washington needs these dollars more than the couples. There are over 21 million couples across the country penalized at an average of $1,400 a year just because they are married. A young couple Senator Craig and I will talk about, when Senator Craig comes back to the floor, has a story I have heard a number of times; that is, the couple planned on marrying toward the end of the year, but after filling out their taxes and comparing it to what they would pay in taxes next year because they were married, they have decided to put the wedding off at least for a couple of weeks beyond the December 31 date so as a couple they will not be penalized because they are getting married. This is a young couple who have made a decision based on economics that because Uncle Sam wants to take a bigger bite out of their wallet, they are going to have to put off their plans to get married for at least several weeks just to get around the corner. We have heard stories of friendly divorces where people have actually decided to have a friendly divorce so they save some money. Or the story of the 78-year-old man who called his wife of over 50 years and said: Do you want a divorce? She said: What are you talking? He said: I am at the tax man's office and if we get a divorce we could save a lot of money. They didn't do it, but it is unfair that the couple is having to pay more dollars in taxes because they are married. There are going to be stories during this debate, as the Senator from Texas pointed out, that somehow there is a marriage bonus, many people on one side are getting this bonus because they are married; or the couple on this side who is being penalized. Somehow that is supposed to wash out and be fair and even. I don't think that is true. These families should not be overtaxed, incur a tax penalty, only because they have decided they are going to get married. I hope, when we consider this legislation this week, we consider these millions of families across the country who are paying on average about $1,400 a year. Nearly $30 billion will be collected for Washington this year from these families. There is a belief that Washington needs this money more than the families do to raise their kids, to buy the clothes, to buy the food, to pay for the mortgage, to put away money for the education of their children. All this is so important, but Washington needs it more. Several years ago, President Clinton was asked at a news conference if he thought the marriage tax penalty was fair. He said, no, it is not really fair, or something to that effect. But the underlying message from the President was, even if it is not fair, Washington can use this money a lot more than the families can. Washington needs these dollars more than the families need these dollars. I hope, when we get a chance to vote on this, we remember these families struggling to make ends meet, families looking for that extra dollar they can put into a savings account for their child's education, or just maybe buying something extra, maybe putting money away for a vacation or a night out for pizza, whatever is important to them. I think $1,400 a year speaks loudly for them. As I said, Washington might believe it needs the money more than these families. However, if we have the families on the floor of the Senate, and one by one ask them if this is an important bill, are these dollars important to your family, could these dollars help out in your budget decisions, or should we give the money to Washington and hope and pray that Washington will give a few of the dollars back? I think if we leave the dollars in the pockets of the families to begin with, they will make the best decisions and they will not have to look to Washington or ask Washington or beg Washington for a few of the dollars to help them raise their families. I defer to my colleague from Idaho.

Mr. GRAMS. I answer the Senator from Idaho by saying it does not. Again, if there are those in the Senate who believe this is one of those rich families who can afford to pay this tax, believe me, these are not rich young people. They are a hard-working young couple but by no means rich. They will work hard and probably will get there someday but right now they are not. It is the furthest thing from fairness. That is the Federal Tax Code. Even if this couple escapes the marriage tax penalty this year, they will still have to pay next year and the next year and the year after, for most of the rest of their lives, unless we change that, as we are trying to do this week with the legislation before the Senate. We are not talking about abstract tax policy. We are not talking about economic theory. We are talking about average families, real families, who are hurt every year by the marriage tax penalty. In many cases, we are not talking about a delay of a wedding. We are talking about a Tax Code that says do not get married if your family may need that second income because the IRS has first claim on that income. I asked that member of my staff why they felt they needed to postpone their wedding a few weeks. He told me it did not make any sense for him and his fiance to fork over another $1,400 to the Federal Government. Some might think that is cheating the Government, but he didn't think so. He said they already pay too much in taxes, and they simply cannot afford to give the Government even more of what is rightfully theirs. My staff member said they can use that money for their wedding, they can use it to help take a trip, or to plan for their family's future, rather than giving it to the Federal Government at a time when the Government simply does not need it. I think he made an excellent point. Washington is taking this money from young couples at a time when it doesn't need the money and these young couples do. I think it is not only wrong but a disgrace that Washington has the large appetite for the hard-earned money of people across America who simply want to get married, start a family, and to begin their lives together.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I fully agree with Senator Craig. I ask for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, to wrap up, our staff's story is not uncommon. There are many young couples who are forced to make similar decisions. The marriage penalty tax has discouraged women from marriage. It even has led some married couples to get friendly divorces. They continue to live together, but save on their taxes. Dr. Gray Burtless of the Brookings Institution recently found that the decline in marriage may be a major reason why income inequality has increased across families. He believes that many poor unmarried workers suffer because they do not have a spouse's income to help support their family. The Economist magazine offered a possible implication of this finding: Mr. Burtless's research suggests that the Clinton administration, rather than fretting about skills and trade, would do better to encourage the poor to marry and make sure their spouses work. The family has been, and will continue to be, the bedrock of our society. Strong families make strong communities; strong communities make for a strong America. We all agree that this marriage penalty tax treats married couples unfairly. Even President Clinton agrees that the marriage penalty is unfair. Contrary to these American values, the Federal tax code contains 66 provisions that can penalize married couples and force them to give more of their income to Washington. The Government's own study shows that 21 million American couples or 42 percent of couples incurred marriage penalties in 1996. This means 42 million individuals pay $1,400 more in tax than if they were divorced, or were living together, or simply remained single--more taxes than they should have. This was not the intention of Congress when it created the marriage penalty tax in the 1960s by separating tax schedules for married and unmarried people. If we do not get rid of this bad tax policy that discourages marriage, millions of married couples will be forced to pay more taxes simply for choosing to commit to a family through marriage. The marriage penalty is most unfair to married couples who are both working, it discriminates against low-income families and is biased against working women. As more and more women go to work today, their added incomes drive their households into higher tax brackets. In fact, women who return to the work force after raising their kids face a 50- percent tax rate--not much of an incentive to work. The good news is, Congress is working hard to provide marriage penalty relief to married couples. American couples may finally get a congressional blessing this year to eliminate the unfair marriage penalty taxes if our colleagues from the other side cooperate and join in our effort. The marriage penalty repeal legislation which we currently debate would eliminate the marriage penalty in the standard deduction; provide broad-based marriage tax penalty relief by widening the 15-percent and 28-percent tax brackets; allow more low-income married couples to qualify for the earned income credit; and preserve the family tax credits from the bite of the alternative minimum tax which allow American families to claim full tax credits such as the $500 per child tax credit, which I authored. Millions of American families are still struggling to make their ends meet. Repealing the marriage penalty will allow American families to keep an average of $1,400 more each year of their own money to pay for health insurance, groceries, child care, or other family necessities. Elimination of the marriage penalty tax brings American families one step closer to the major tax relief they deserve. It is particularly important to note that this repeal will primarily benefit minority, low- and middle-class families. Studies suggest the marriage penalty hits African-Americans and lower-income working families hardest. Repeal the penalty, and those low-income families will immediately have an 8-percent increase in their income. It is unfair to continue the marriage penalty tax. There is no reason to delay the passage of the legislation. I urge my colleagues in the Senate pass the marriage penalty relief legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize National Library Week and pay tribute to those dedicated individuals who, through their passion for books and learning, make our libraries places of great discovery. If a child wants to know everything there is to know about space, you could send them up there in a rocket ship. If they're interested in tornadoes, you could send them out after one with a crew of storm chasers. If they'd like to meet George Washington, you could even send them back in time. You could--if you just knew how. Or, you could send them to the library instead. National Library Week is April 9-15, and there's no better place than our libraries for bringing the world and the events that shape it--past and present--to life. Fortunately, a child doesn't need any special gadgets to experience all the library has to offer; they just need a library card. As Congress debates important issues like the federal budget and how to save Social Security, the library is also an excellent place for young people to learn more about government and what's happening in Washington. And of course, the librarians are always there to help. On the occasion of National Library Week, I urge all Americans to check out a book--and ``check out'' all the riches their local library has to offer.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, boxer Muhammad Ali once said, ``Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth.'' Minnesota's volunteers exemplify that philosophy, and during National Volunteer Week, April 9-15, we celebrate their passion for their communities. National Volunteer Week offers an opportunity to salute the millions of dedicated men, women, and young people for their efforts and their commitment to serve. Volunteers are one of this nation's most valuable resources, making this year's Volunteer Week theme--``Celebrate Volunteers!''--very appropriate. Minnesotans can be proud that our state has one of the highest rates of volunteerism in the nation. While 56 percent of Americans volunteer nationally, two-thirds of all Minnesotans give back to their communities through volunteering. According to state officials, this show of strength returns $6.5 billion a year in donated hours to Minnesota communities. Thanks to the many Minnesota volunteers who help make our communities better, more compassionate places to live. For those who have yet to discover the joy that comes from serving others, I invite them to get involved--and remember the words of Henry David Thoreau: ``One is not born into the world to do everything but to do something.'' Volunteering is truly your opportunity to do something.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to S. 2323, the vote occur on passage at 2:30 p.m. today, with all other provisions of the previous consent still applicable and paragraph 4 of rule XII being waived.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I've come to the Senate floor on a number of occasions in recent weeks to express my concern with rising fuel costs and the lack of an energy policy by this Administration. I don't have to remind my colleagues how the rising cost of oil threatens almost every aspect of our economy and communities. Senior citizens on fixed incomes cannot absorb extreme fluctuations in their energy costs. Business travelers and airlines cannot afford dramatic increases in airline fuel costs. Families struggling to feed and educate their children cannot withstand higher heating bills, increasing gasoline costs, or the domino effect this crisis has on the costs of goods and services. To be sure, this problem is impacting virtually every facet of American life and may only get worse as we approach the high energy demand of the summer months. I look at the situation we're now facing with high oil prices and limited supply and have a hard time understanding why it's such a surprise to so many people. I've heard Secretary Richardson refer to the fact that the Energy Department may have been caught ``napping on the job.'' Since coming to Congress in 1993, I've been saying the Energy Department is asleep at the wheel. We have an Energy Department that spends less than 15% of its budget, and even less of its time, on the core energy issues within the Department. I dare say that energy consumers are the last thing they think about over on Independence Avenue--certainly not the first. With all due respect to Secretary Richardson, I don't think he was necessarily caught napping on the job, but flat out neglecting the energy needs of this country. Under the tenure of the last three Secretaries of Energy, this Administration has done nothing but weaken our energy security, increase our reliance on foreign oil, shut down domestic oil and gas production, and ensure the closure or removal of many of our primary means of electricity generation--coal, nuclear, and hydropower. I think it's time that policy-makers in Washington come to the realization that we are now a nation with no energy policy and no ability to respond to even the most limited energy supply disruptions. Consider the recent effort of the Administration to address the oil price crisis. We've all witnessed this Administration's ``tin-can diplomacy'' over the past few weeks. Instead of planning for the energy needs of our country, this Administration waits for a crisis and then responds by sending its appointees to grovel, plead, or otherwise beg other nations into helping us out. The United States, thanks to this Administration, is a nation running around the world looking for a handout from friend and foe alike. It's embarrassing that the economy of our nation hinged on the decision of a few oil ministers sitting in a room in Vienna just a couple of weeks ago. Do we realize that Iran was blocking an OPEC increase of 1.7 million barrels of oil a day? The strength of our economy now may rest on the ability of OPEC oil ministers to convince countries like Iran to help us out in the future. That is quite a statement on the viability of the Clinton Administration energy policy. But still, this Administration maintains its steadfast opposition to doing anything here in the United States to dramatically decrease our reliance on foreign oil and increase our domestic exploration and production. ANWR is off-limits. They don't want to discuss off-shore drilling. They claim they're open to looking at some activity on public lands, but at the same time they're on a blitz to lock up every last acre of land they can find into some type of new, restrictive designation before President Clinton and Secretary Babbitt leave office. Well, the farmers of Minnesota can't wait for President Clinton or Secretaries Babbitt or Richardson to leave office before our country places a renewed emphasis on a sound, long-term energy policy. Truckers across America cannot wait for President Clinton to leave office to get some relief at the fuel pump. And energy consumers far and wide cannot stand by while this Administration begs countries like Iran and Libya to ``feel our pain.'' Regrettably, I fear the oil supply and price crisis we're now experiencing is only an early warning of the pain the Clinton Administration's neglect of energy policy is going to level on American energy consumers. It won't be that far into the future before this Administration's appetite for closing down nuclear and coal-fired power plants and destroying hyrdopower facilities will bring similar price increases for electricity consumers. Many of us have suggested that we need to look closely at both short- and long-term approaches to easing the pain of the current oil crisis on American energy consumers and reducing our nation's reliance on foreign oil. I've spoken at length about how we need to focus our efforts on developing a long-term energy policy that puts American jobs and productivity first, instead of last. Doing so, however, will take time and produce few immediate results to help consumers in the coming months. In the short-term, I believe Congress must consider temporarily suspending some or all of the federal fuel taxes, which, along with state excise taxes, account for an average of 40 cents per gallon of gasoline. That is why I've joined Majority Leader Trent Lott, Senator Larry Craig and a number of my colleagues in offering S. 2285--The Federal Fuels Tax Holiday Act of 2000. Our legislation would temporarily suspend the 4.3 cent tax on gasoline, diesel fuel, and aviation fuel while protecting both the Highway Trust Fund and the Social Security surplus. The bill will suspend the 4.3 cent tax starting on April 16 through January 1, 2001. For farmers, truckers, airlines, and other large energy consumers, this action will have an even greater positive impact on the large amounts of fuel they consume. This legislation reflects the leadership of a number of our colleagues. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado has championed legislation to suspend the diesel fuel tax. Once a trucker himself, Senator Campbell has led the way in assisting truckers and their families who are suffering as a result of the rising price of diesel fuel. And Senator Murkowski, as Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, has been a leader in calling attention to the growing energy needs of our nation and the Administration's energy policy failures. I want to add that I'm very aware that many of my colleagues have argued that 4.3 cents a gallon has a negligible impact on consumers. To them, I say look at the amount of fuel a farmer or trucker consumes during an average week. Look at the diesel fuel required to operate a family farm or deliver products across this country. Or look at the tight profit margins that can make the difference between going to work and being without a job. I'm convinced this action is going to help farmers, businesses, truckers, and families in Minnesota and that's why I strongly support it. I firmly believe that federal gas taxes should go to the Highway Trust Fund for road, highway and bridge improvements. That's why we're restoring revenues being provided to energy consumers by the 4.3 cent gas tax suspension. The Highway Trust Fund will be reinstated with non- Social Security budget surplus funds from the current fiscal year as well as fiscal year 2001. In addition, no highway projects or airport projects will be delayed or jeopardized, because funds going into the trust fund are fully restored by the surplus. There will be no impact on these projects. If gas prices reach a national average of $2 a gallon for regular unleaded gasoline, federal excise gas taxes would be suspended, again without impacting the Highway Trust Fund in any way. This would suspend, until the end of the year, the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gasoline tax, the 24.4 cents per gallon tax on highway diesel fuel and kerosene, the 19.4 cents per gallon for noncommercial aviation gasoline, the 21.9 cents per gallon for noncommercial jet fuel, and the 4.4 cents per gallon for commercial aviation fuel. Let me make this very clear: we are not going to raid the Highway Trust Fund with this legislation. In fact, we've ensured that the non- Social Security budget surplus will absorb all of the costs of the gas tax reduction. I also want to assure my colleagues and my constituents that this legislation walls off the Social Security surplus. We will not spend any of the Social Security surplus to pay for the gas tax reduction. Our legislation is quite simply a tax cut for the American consumer at a time when it's needed most. We're going to use surplus funds-- funds that have been taken from the American consumer above and beyond the needs of government--and give them back to consumers every day at the gasoline pumps. This legislation takes concrete steps toward more reasonable fuel prices, helping to serve as a buffer for consumers who are already feeling the impact of the high cost of gasoline and other fuels. In closing, I want to say that I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming days, weeks and months in forging a number of both short-term and long-term responses to the needs of farmers, truckers, the elderly, and all energy consumers. I've been a strong supporter of renewable energy technologies and increased funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LiHEAP. I strongly support the efforts of my colleagues to increase domestic oil and gas exploration and production. I remain committed to finding a resolution to our nation's nuclear waste storage crisis--a crisis that threatens to shut down nuclear plants and further weaken our nation's domestic energy security. And I'll continue to be one of the Senate's strongest critics of the Department of Energy's unconscionable neglect of the long-term energy needs of our nation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, Galileo understood the importance of mathematics when he said, ``Mathematics is the alphabet with which God has created the universe.'' I proudly rise today in recognition of Mathematics Education Month. Additionally, I take this opportunity to applaud the tireless efforts of our nation's math teachers. The importance of a strong mathematical education is indisputable. Our math skills prove invaluable on a daily basis. Without them we could not perform simple tasks such as buying groceries, following a recipe, or balancing our checkbooks, much less plan for our retirement or buy a home. Here in Congress, mathematical skills are essential to comprehending the incredibly complex issues of Social Security reform, taxes, and the federal budget process. My home state of Minnesota boasts some of the best math educators in the country, dedicated men and women who have inspired a lifetime of learning in countless students. This has been proven time and again by Minnesota's status as a national leader in ACT and SAT math scores. Nevertheless, we should continue to make improvements and not be satisfied with our success. One organization in my state deserves special accolades for its ongoing efforts to initiate those improvements. The Minnesota Council of Teachers of Mathematics is dedicated to the constant betterment of mathematical education at the elementary, secondary, and college levels. The Council's advocacy results in an ongoing effort to raise the bar for better education. I commend its members for their devotion to creating an awareness and interest in mathematics among young people. As classrooms across America labor over long division, tangents and derivatives this month, it is my hope that students, parents, and teachers alike will reflect on the significance of mathematics in our society and join me in celebrating Mathematics Education Month.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support Senator Ashcroft's amendment to the budget resolution. I commend his leadership on this vitally important issue. This amendment reassures the American people that Congress will not spend a penny of their Social Security and Medicare money. It will put the Senate on record that we honor our commitment. This is a crucial step to truly protect the Social Security and Medicare surpluses and save them exclusively for American's retirement and health care needs, not for tax relief, not for government spending. Beginning in 2008, 78 million baby-boomers will become eligible for retirement, and without immediate action taken by the Congress the system will begin to collapse. From that point on, we will have more retirees than ever before, and fewer workers paying into the system. Washington has made the situation even worse because it keeps raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. In 1998, American workers paid $489 billion into the Social Security system, but most of that money, $382 billion, was immediately paid out that same year to 44 million beneficiaries. That left a $106 billion surplus. The total accumulated surplus in the trust fund is more than $750 billion. Unfortunately, this surplus exists only on paper. The government has consumed all that $750 billion for non-Social Security related programs. All it has are Treasury IOUs. Even the Clinton administration admits that the trust fund does not actually exist. Here is what the President's last budget stated: These trust funds balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. That's not acceptable. We must say no to anyone who wants to spend even a penny of the Social Security surplus because we promised the American people we would save it. There is no excuse in an era of budget surplus to continue raiding the Social Security trust funds. Washington has done enough damage to America's retirement system. The just-released annual report of the Social Security Trust Fund's Board of Trustee's shows short-term improvement but continued long-term deterioration. The government will have to come up with $11.3 trillion from general revenues between 2015 and 2036 to make up the annual shortfall in the Social Security System. The inflation-adjusted cumulative deficit between 2015 and 2075 is now projected to be $21.6 trillion, up nearly 7 percent compared with last year's projection. If the economy takes a turn for the worse, or if the demographic assumptions are too optimistic, the trust fund could go bankrupt much sooner. This makes our work to save and reform Social Security and Medicare even more urgent. The Ashcroft amendment will bring us one step closer to protecting Social Security and Medicare. Unlike the previous Social Security lockbox, which locks up only the Social Security surplus, this amendment would extend that protection to the Medicare surplus as well. The Medicare part A surplus will be about $20 billion a year. This surplus should be preserved only for the medical expenses of senior Americans, not the general government spending. If enacted, the Ashcroft amendment would, in effect, prevent anyone, whether it is the Congress or the administration, for raiding the Social Security and Medicare surplus. I believe this is absolutely the right thing to do. Mr. President, the American people demand that we truly protect the Social Security and Medicare surplus, and they want to stop the federal government's practice of so-called ``borrowing'' from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. They are very worried that retirement funds will not be there for them, and they are concerned that the government will not be able to return the more than $750 billion ``borrowed'' and spent by the government. Over the next 10 years, American workers will put more than $2.3 trillion into the Social Security system. We must do everything we can to prevent the government from spending this Social Security and Medicare surplus under any circumstances. We need an enforcement mechanism to keep our promise to the American people. The Ashcroft amendment provides the protection for Americans' retirement and health care money. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the YMCA organization and Ys across America as they celebrate Healthy Kids Day this April 8. Every year on Healthy Kids Day, Ys focus their attention on children as they organize and provide an opportunity for the whole family to spend time together while improving their health. Last year, more than 1,200 YMCAs participated in Healthy Kids Day events. In Minnesota, some 100 Ys have developed their own activities for this year's Healthy Kids Day to serve their local needs. From cookouts to mentoring programs, this Saturday is for the children's benefit as well as their families. Of course, the good work of the nation's YMCAs extends beyond Healthy Kids Day and into every day of the year. YMCAs promote healthy living habits and provide Americans of all ages with the tools to develop good character, empathizing respect and responsibility. Ys are for people of all faiths, races, abilities, and incomes. No one is turned away for inability to pay, as YMCA is the largest not-for-profit community service organization in America. The strength of America's YMCAs is in the people they bring together. More than half of YMCA members are under the age of 18. Ys involve more than 8 million children in programs to help them build lasting habits of good health, including regular exercise, healthy eating and avoidance of substance abuse. YMCA volunteers and staff act as role models for these children to expose them to all facets of life. Local Ys allow kids to have a place to call their own, and the programs they take part in allow them to develop a community with their peers. Instead of taking a cookie-cutter approach to community service, YMCAs adjust their programs to fit the needs of their local communities. Whether through day camps, the Black Achievers Program, swimming lessons, family literacy programs, job training, transitional housing, or any number of other important efforts, the nation's YMCAs are reaching out to our communities and offering individualized service. Not merely an American institution, YMCAs stretch around the globe, serving more than 30 million people in 120 countries and helping to foster strong kids, families and communities world-wide. Mr. President, this April 8 will build on that impressive record of service. I commend those involved in this year's celebration of YMCA Healthy Kids Day for their tireless efforts and wish continued success to every YMCA for making a difference in not only a child's life, but the lives of people of all ages.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of International Astronomy Day. This event seeks ``to promote the forerunner of all scientific endeavors and to provide information, resources, and encouragement in all facets of astronomy.'' Astronomy has played a central role in human history and development. It was somewhere around 4000 B.C. when the first astronomical observations were recorded, and what has followed has been nothing short of amazing. In 240 B.C., Eratosthenes of Cyrene used the stars to calculate the circumference of the earth. Astronomy as we know it today certainly owes Galileo a debt of gratitude for being the first to use a telescope to view the stars, bringing an end to naked-eye astronomy and advancing the science of optics. More recent astronomers include Edwin P. Hubble and Jocelyn Bell. The collective work of the world's astronomers has brought the heavens closer, while offering us great insights into our own life on Earth. To continue these advances of science, it is vital that we encourage our nation's youth to pursue careers in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and mathematics. I look upon the success of the NASA space camps and how they have encouraged our youth to pursue careers in the sciences. Since 1989, NASA has administered the ``Space Grant'' program to enhance aerospace research and education in the United States. This program is an effective partnership among universities, the aerospace industry, and federal, state, and local government that assists in the recruitment and training of professionals in aerospace science, engineering, and technology. In my home state, the Minnesota Space Grant Consortium is comprised of 13 academic institutions along with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Honeywell, Boeing, and three community-based entities: The Bakken, Science Museum of Minnesota, and SciMathMN. The 13 academic institutions are: Augsburg College, Bemidji State University, Bethel College, Carleton College, College of St. Catherine, Fond du Lac Community College, Leech Lake Tribal College, Macalester College, Normandale Community College, Southwest State University, University of Minnesota-Duluth, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, and the University of St. Thomas. For the last several years, this consortium of local talents has worked effectively to promote aerospace science through fellowships and scholarships, the development of new courses in Physics and Geology, the establishment of a new Space Studies minor among the members, and public lectures relating to space science and engineering. The scientists, engineers, administrators, and astronauts of NASA have guided this nation to the forefront of aeronautical expertise. I am proud that Minnesotans have been central to NASA's achievements throughout its history. My state has a well-deserved reputation as a high-technology giant, making our job creators a perfect match with NASA, and the space agency has come to depend upon Minnesota ingenuity and expertise. Dozens of Minnesota firms currently work under NASA's space shuttle program; I was honored to witness their accomplishments first-hand in 1997 when I toured NASA's Florida facilities and viewed the launch of the space shuttle Columbia. None of these achievements would have been possible without modern astronomy, and our astronomers will no doubt be at the center of space research for years to come. In Minnesota, we are fortunate to have many groups that are determined to keep the interest in astronomy high for all generations. I would like to draw your attention to the Minnesota Astronomical Society, whose members are active in the growing movement to generate interest in astronomy. I commend them for their enthusiasm and their success in turning our attention to the skies. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I neglected to note the great work being done at the University of Minnesota Department of Astronomy. Department Head Leonard Kuhi directs a staff of more than 30 scientists and professors busy working on a wide variety of research projects that are at the cutting edge of astronomic research. These include projects in space physics, cosmology, computational astrophysics, and others. We in Minnesota also have the distinct pleasure and privilege of being home to the great Minneapolis Planetarium, a top-rate facility that provides an avenue of discovery for everyone who comes to visit. The Minneapolis Planetarium offers visitors a wide variety of programs for all to enjoy. I again recognize International Astronomy Day and commend all those in my state--the backyard astronomy clubs that offer many their first glimpse into the cosmos; the planetariums, observatories, and museums that bring the richness of space down to Earth for all; and the Minnesota organizations and companies that are putting our fascination with space to practical use--who are helping to keep the interest in astronomy running high.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes to address the assumption in the budget of oil leasing revenues from activities within the Section 1002 area of Alaska. First, however, I think it's important to understand just a few of the facts surrounding the current state of the Clinton energy policy. In 1977, the Carter Administration and Congress responded to the energy crisis by creating the Department of Energy and charging it with increasing U.S. energy security and reducing our reliance on foreign oil. In the early 1970's, our Nation relied upon foreign oil to meet roughly 35 percent of our needs. Today, after investing billions of dollars into the Department of Energy, our Nation is now reliant upon foreign oil to meet almost 60 percent of our needs. That reliance will increase to 65 percent by 2020. Those numbers are real, they're tangible, and everyone has been able to see it happening. The Clinton Administration has had seven years to respond to our growing reliance on foreign oil and to increase our domestic energy security. So you might ask, what have they done to improve the situation? I regret to say they've done very little. Since 1992, U.S. oil production has decreased by 17 percent while at the same time our energy consumption has increased by 14 percent. In 1990, U.S. jobs in oil and gas exploration and production were roughly 405,000 today those jobs have been reduced to roughly 290,000, a 27 percent decline. And in 1990, the U.S. was home to 657 working oil rigs. Today, there are only 153 working oil rigs scattered across the Nation a 77 percent decline. Likewise, since coming to office, President Clinton has known that the U.S. Department of Energy was obligated by contract to pick up and remove spent nuclear fuel from civilian nuclear reactors across the country. In my home state of Minnesota, the Department's failure to remove nuclear fuel could force the shutdown of two nuclear reactors and the loss of 20 percent of Minnesota's generation capacity. Again, not only has this Administration failed to respond, I believe they've made the situation even worse by rejecting legislation that has passed both Houses of Congress with overwhelming, bipartisan majorities. Those bills would have not only moved waste from states, thereby fulfilling the Department's obligation, they would have helped ensure the continued use of emissions-free nuclear power well into the future. As if that weren't enough, the Clinton Administration has taken a very hostile approach to coal-fired generation, they've termed hydropower a non-renewable resource and are now working to breach dams in the Northwest, and they've closed vast areas of land to exploration for natural gas reserves. When confronted with the truth about high oil costs and increasing reliance on foreign oil, the only thing this Administration can say is that they support renewable energy sources. Well, I too, am a strong supporter of renewable energy technologies. I've been a strong proponent of the development and promotion of ethanol and biodiesel as a means of reducing our reliance on foreign oil and improving the environment. I was a cosponsor of legislation signed into law last year extending the tax credit for electricity generated from wind and expanding that tax credit to electricity generated from poultry waste. I have written letters in each of the past two years to Senate appropriators supporting significant increases in renewable energy programs, and I was one of 39 Senators to vote in support of a $75 million increase for renewable energy programs last year. I wrote to President Clinton this year asking him to include more money for renewable energy programs in his budget. However, I know that simply calling for increased funding for renewable energy can't even approach the loss of generation in hydropower, nuclear, coal, and other sources that this Administration has pursued through its energy policies. I think it's clear that, since coming to Washington in 1993, this Administration has been asleep at the wheel in developing a coherent energy policy. They're more interested in pursuing the limited agenda of a few interest groups than in planning for the energy needs of a growing economy. Instead of strapping on the same blinders that narrowly guide the Clinton Administration, I believe Congress must put all of our options on the table and begin to plan for the long-term energy needs of our nation's consumers. One of those options is clearly the topic we're discussing today, our nation's tremendous oil reserves in the Section 1002 area of Alaska. Mr. President, history shows that for two decades, Congress has placed special consideration upon this area because of its potential for significant oil and gas reserves. In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act--or ANILCA. In addition to setting aside over 100 million acres of Alaska for National Parks, Refuges, and Wilderness, the ANILCA legislation specifically left open the future management of a 1.5 million-acre area on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The legislation also required the Department of Interior to undertake geological and biological studies of the Section 1002 area and report back to Congress. After more than five years of conducting these studies, the Department of Interior, in 1987, recommended to Congress that the Section 1002 area be made available for oil and gas exploration and production, and that it be done in an environmentally sound manner. Congress has responded to this recommendation a number of times since receiving it from the Department of Interior. In fact, both Houses of Congress passed an authorization for oil and gas leasing in the Section 1002 area as part of the 1995 budget reconciliation legislation, but it was eventually vetoed by President Clinton. Today, as a result of increasing prices for oil and decreasing domestic oil and gas production, we find ourselves again debating some decades-old questions. Do we move forward in an environmentally sound manner to develop domestic oil and gas reserves, or do we ask other nations to produce oil for us without similar environmental safeguards? Do we keep American jobs and investments inside our borders, or do we ship our jobs and industries to foreign nations? Do we increase our energy and national security while we have a chance to do so, or do we run around the world begging friend and foe alike to ``feel our pain'' every time we have an oil supply disruption? For me, the answer is simple. This budget resolution assumes that we're going to move forward to develop oil and gas reserves in the Section 1002 area of Alaska--our nation's most promising deposit of recoverable oil and gas. In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey produced an assessment of estimated in-place oil resources reaffirming previous studies that showed the tremendous potential of the Section 1002 area. In fact, it showed that Section 1002 contains as much as 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil--enough to offset 30 years worth of Saudi Arabian imports. Clearly, this area has great potential for easing the growing vulnerability we have to oil supply disruptions abroad. I think it is important to note that we're not talking about turning the Section 1002 area over to oil companies and then walking away forever. If we're going to allow oil and gas exploration and production, it will be done in an environmentally sound manner and with due consideration to the needs of fish and wildlife populations. Senator Murkowski has introduced legislation that accomplishes those very goals. S. 2214--The Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act--contains a number of provisions to protect the environment. The bill directs the Secretary of Interior to issue regulations that protect fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources, and the environment of the Coastal Plain of Alaska. The bill provides the Secretary with the authority to close areas of the Coastal Plain, on a seasonal basis, to protect caribou calving and other fish and wildlife species. The bill would also require those obtaining federal leases to comply with federal and state environmental laws, reclaim leased lands to the condition in which they were found, and ensure the protection of fish, wildlife, and the environment. To ensure these actions are done, the Secretary will require bonds to any lands and surface waters affected and conduct semi-annual inspections of every facility to ensure compliance with all environmental regulations. To my colleagues who oppose exploration of the Section 1002 area, do you think other nations on whom we rely for our oil supplies are employing similar protections? Do you think Iran, Libya, or Iraq are going the extra mile to protect wildlife? Do you think the OPEC nations are holding themselves to these stringent environmental standards? We all know the answer is an emphatic NO. Yet this Administration is opposing any exploration of the Section 1002 area for environmental reasons, while at the same time begging Iran, Iraq, Libya and others to increase their production for us. I ask my colleagues, who are the real environmentalists here? Certainly not the Clinton Administration. It's clear to me that this Administration's policy against exploration in the Section 1002 area, when compared against its policy of begging for increased oil production abroad, is a net loss for American jobs, family checkbooks, domestic energy security, and the environment. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to take a hard look at the intellectual dishonesty of refusing to explore our domestic oil and gas reserves for environmental reasons, while asking other nations to find and produce more oil with significantly fewer environmental protections than we require. I support the inclusion of this assumption in the budget resolution and I hope we vote to maintain it. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, April 5th marked the 232nd anniversary of the founding of the first Chamber of Commerce in the United States. A full eight years before the colonies declared their ``independence'' from English rule, New York City business owners banded together to create a unified voice. Today, there are thousands of local Chambers from Anchorage, Alaska to Zumbrota, Minnesota. Over the past eight years, I have had to honor to work with these grassroots organizations on a wide variety of issues. Whether its been estate tax relief or permanent normalized trade with China, Minnesota's chambers have been there, working for Minnesota's job providers, every step of the way. That is why I was so proud to receive the Chamber's Spirit of Enterprise award earlier this year. When Washington talks about our strong economy, debating what to do with the billions in federal surplus dollars, it sometimes appears as though Congress wants to take all the credit. Policy makers focus on the innovations, the increased productivity, the ``globalization'' of today's marketplace as proof of their good work. I don't need to remind my colleagues that the only thing Government can do is to remove the barriers to competition and provide a level playing field. The rest is a direct result of the entrepreneurial spirit of the men and women who've sacrificed to build businesses around Minnesota and around the country. Employers and employees, working hand in hand and with their chamber of commerce, have helped to turn this nation around. So Mr. President, while our chamber members are taking care of business back home, we must recognize they are looking to the Congress for leadership to stem the tide of burdensome regulations and oppressive taxes. I believe working together, we can create an environment where all can thrive. And as we mark the anniversary of the first chamber of commerce, let us celebrate the contributions of all our chambers.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support Senator Allard's amendment, which would protect Social Security and eliminate the federal debt held by the public. I believe this is a fiscally responsible amendment and it will help us to maintain fiscal discipline in an era of budget surplus. If enacted, this amendment would stop Washington's spending spree and eliminate the entire $3.6 trillion debt owed to the public, save over $3 trillion in interest, and protect the Social Security program from annual discretionary appropriations raids. Mr. President, thanks to our strong economy, we will have a $1.9 trillion non-Social Security surplus and a $2.3 trillion Social Security surplus over the next 10 years. Yet there are many proposals to spend this surplus. If we spend it, rather than save it, we will confirm the public's worst fears about the irresponsibility of their elected leaders. This budget surplus didn't just fall from the sky. It is working Americans who generated the surplus--not Congress, not the President, but Americans' hard work. And it should be returned to taxpayers in the form of debt reduction, tax relief, and Social Security reform. If we don't lock in the budget surplus and return it to the taxpayers in these ways, Washington will spend it all. Last year's appropriations spending has proven that my fears are well founded. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has repeatedly advised the Congress and the administration that we should use the surplus for debt reduction or tax relief, rather than increasing government spending. Here is what he said: Saving the surpluses--if politically feasible--is, in my judgment, the most important fiscal measure we can take at this time to foster continued improvements in productivity. The Allard amendment would achieve this goal by dedicating some of the non-Social Security surplus to retire the debt. It also locks up the entire Social Security surplus for debt reduction, so we can have more cash reserves to save and reform Social Security, and to ensure Social Security will be there for our seniors, baby boomers, and future generations. I am pleased that under this budget resolution, we dedicate the $1.1 trillion budget surplus to reduce the debt. This is a move in the right direction. We should now accelerate and continue the debt repayments. The Allard amendment will just do that. Starting in fiscal year 2001, this amendment requires Congress to use $15 billion of non-Social Security surplus receipts to pay down the debt. Thereafter, in every succeeding year, the amount of debt payment must increase by $15 billion. Under this amendment, we will do more to pay down the debt. Futhermore, the Allard amendment leaves plenty of room to provide tax relief for working Americans, while protecting the Social Security surplus. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about debt reduction, but what they really want is to use debt reduction as an excuse to deny working Americans tax relief and to increase government spending. When I offered an amendment in the Budget Committee to dedicate this fiscal year's $26 billion on-budget surplus to retire the national debt, all of the Minority party members voted against my amendment, claiming that it would cut government spending too much. Mr. President, our economy has greatly improved our short-term fiscal situation, and we will have a significant budget surplus over the next 10 years. However, our long-term fiscal condition, such as the insolvency of Social Security, still constitutes the primary threat to the health of our future economy. We must seize the opportunity presented by this budget surplus to address our long-term fiscal imbalances caused by the astronomic unfunded liability of Social Security. Without reform, the long-term financial imbalances will crowd out all of our discretionary spending. It will create fiscal hardship for millions of baby boomers and impose a heavy burden on future generations. The Allard amendment offers us the opportunity to fix the problem. The Allard amendment maintains the fiscal discipline we need in an era of budget surplus. It requires Congress to budget for a surplus that will be dedicated to the repayment of the publicly held portion of the debt, while maintaining a balanced budget. As I have repeatedly warned, without returning this budget surplus to the taxpayers in the form of debt reduction and tax relief, Washington will spend all of it. Let's pass the Allard amendment to stop that.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to salute the work of the 3,072 county governments nationwide, and in particular the work of the 87 counties in my home State of Minnesota. Counties are often an invisible, but extremely important part of our intergovernmental system. As we enter the new millennium, it is important to review our past as we look to the future. County governments began as a response to the needs of the early settlers of our country, tracing their beginnings to the roots of the Anglo-Saxon local government 1,000 years ago. Counties first appeared in colonial America, making them older than the Republic itself. Traditionally, counties performed state-mandated duties which included assessment of property, record-keeping, such as property and vital statistics, maintenance of rural roads, and administration of election and judicial functions. Today, counties are moving rapidly into other areas, undertaking programs relating to consumer protection, economic development, employment training, planning and zoning, and water quality, to name just a few. During the week of April 9-15, counties across the country are celebrating National County Government Week. This celebration is an annual event for counties. First held in 1991, the goal of National County Government Week is to raise public awareness and understanding about the roles and responsibilities of the Nation's counties. More than 1,000 counties annually participate in National County Government Week by holding a variety of programs and events at the national, State and local levels. These include tours of county facilities, presentations in schools, meetings with business and community leaders, recognition programs for volunteers, briefings on environmental projects, and the adoption of proclamations. There is a theme each year for National County Government Week. This year, the theme is ``Honoring Volunteers.'' The National Association of Counties will recognize the top county volunteer programs in the country at a ceremony April 13 in Washington, D.C. Counties will receive awards for their ``Acts of Caring'' efforts that they undertook using volunteers to improve their country's quality of life. I know that NACo has encouraged counties to hold a town meeting this week during National County Government Week or launch a series of community-wide dialogues to solicit citizen participation in identifying the community's most pressing issues and establishing a comprehensive vision for the future. I hope many Minnesota counties will participate in these activities. NACo has also suggested that, as we enter the new millennium, counties reflect on the past and prepare for the future. As part of that process, counties may want to apply for the designation of Millennium Community. This designation, presented by the White House Millennium Council, is given to counties and cities that have established programs that ``Honor the Past--Imagine the Future.'' One of NACo's priorities for this year is economic development. The organization is encouraging counties to create and expand businesses, noting the fact that businesses not only provide jobs, but also keep taxes in check. Therefore, counties have been encouraged to promote economic development programs. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to support the efforts of our county governments not only in Minnesota, but throughout the country. National County Government Week will again be successful in raising pubic awareness of the good work of our nation's county governments and how they help improve the lives of their residents.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. What is the order of business before the Senate?

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 minutes in support of S. 2097.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my strong support for S. 2097, the Launching Our Communities Access to Local Television Act of 2000. I also commend Senator Craig Thomas and Senator Tim Johnson for the work they have done. They have been on the floor today talking about this bill; more important, they have been working for days, weeks, and even months trying to put this bill together. I really thank them and commend them for all the work and effort they put into getting this bill to where it is today. During the 106th Congress, few issues have generated as many phone calls, letters, and e-mails to my office as those opinions expressed by rural Minnesotans concerned about the future of their satellite television programs. In recent months, Federal district court decisions terminating the satellite signals of thousands of satellite subscribers and the uncertain status of the Satellite Home Viewer Act have caused unnecessary frustration and inconvenience for Minnesotans who depend upon satellite television for informational, education, and entertainment programming on a daily basis. For these reasons, I am very pleased to have supported the enactment of legislation last year that reauthorized the Satellite Home Viewer Act. The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act has begun to encourage greater competition between the satellite and cable industries while also providing consumers in the top television markets with the benefit of ``local-into-local'' television programming. Additionally, this law has protected existing satellite subscribers from having their distant network signals terminated and reduced the copyright fees paid by satellite providers. This reduction in copyright fees has helped to make satellite service more affordable to consumers, particularly in rural areas. I also recognize that millions of Americans in small, rural areas have not begun to enjoy the local-into-local programming because satellite carriers do not have the capability to provide this service into small, rural areas immediately. In fact, two of the largest satellite providers, DirecTV and Echostar, have testified that their companies will initially provide local-into-local service to households in the top 50-60 television markets. Thus, approximately 150 television markets such as the Duluth-Superior, Rochester, and Mankato television markets in Minnesota will not receive this programming as quickly as urban markets. I firmly believe that Congress should ensure that rural America receives the benefits of this technology and local-into-local programming. For these reasons, I have been working with my colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee, industry groups, and consumers to pass the ``LOCAL TV Act.'' This legislation would establish a $1.25 billion loan guarantee program to facilitate access to local television programming in rural Minnesota communities and throughout the country. Importantly, the LOCAL TV Act will help to facilitate local-into-local programming without mandating a specific technology to provide this service and thereby encouraging competition and innovation by independent cable companies and satellite providers. I was very concerned that this legislation excludes several private lenders from providing the financing to ensure local-into-local programming throughout rural communities. Specifically, the LOCAL TV Act provides that the federal government will guarantee 80 percent of any loan that is provided by FDIC insured depository institutions. So far, so good. Mr. President, limiting the guarantee to 80 percent assures that whichever lending institution provides the financing will have very good reason to give the loan request extensive scrutiny to justify the 20 percent of the loan which is not guaranteed and perhaps decide not to lend. This careful scrutiny would be less assured if we allowed 100 percent government loan guarantees. I also support authorizing the FDIC insured lenders to have the opportunity to participate in the loan guarantee programs. However, the bill currently excludes certain private sector lenders which have substantial experience providing multi-million dollar loans in a coop environment and which have a track record of support for projects of this size in rural areas. For this reason, I have joined with Senators Johnson and Thomas to introduce an amendment to this bill which will expand the list of eligible lenders. Specifically, the Johnson-Thomas-Grams amendment requires eligible lenders to have at least one issue of outstanding debt that is rated in one of the three highest rating categories by a national statistical rating agency. This provision will ensure that our expanded list of lenders will have been subjected to rigorous marketplace scrutiny. The process of achieving one of the three highest investment grade ratings involves an intense review of the lender's capital strength, lending expertise, and loan loss experience. The wording for this amendment is almost identical to wording which this body utilized last fall when we passed S. 900, the Gramm-Leach- Bliley bill. In that landmark legislation, the test of marketplace scrutiny was used to determine which of the top 50 national banks could conduct expanded activities in a bank subsidiary. The theory we used was that marketplace discipline is an important threshold in sorting the qualified from the unqualified. That same approach is being put in place here. Lastly, our amendment also requires an eligible lender to have provided financing with outstanding debt from the Rural Utilities Service. This provision is important because the underlying bill authorizes the Rural Utilities Service to be the administrator of the loan guarantee program. The second part of this provision states that the approved lender must demonstrate to the loan guarantee board that it has the expertise, capacity and capital strength to provide financing pursuant to the act. Mr. President, I believe the Johnson-Thomas-Grams amendment will strengthen the LOCAL TV Act and ensure that rural Americans will soon enjoy the benefits of local television programming. I am pleased that Chairman Gramm has been working to accommodate our concerns and strengthen this legislation. Mr. President, again, I commend and thank very much Senators Craig Thomas and Tim Johnson for all their hard work in making this legislation possible. I urge everybody's strong support of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Loan Deficiency Payment Flexibility Act. The idea for this legislation came from Peter Kalenberg, a producer from Stewart, MN, and is an example of how a good idea can be transformed into sound public policy. It is supported by such organizations as the Minnesota Corn Growers, the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation, and the Minnesota Wheat Growers Association. These and many other groups have recognized the need for this legislation. As you know, Loan Deficiency Payments, otherwise known as LDPs, were a key component of the 1996 Farm bill and have helped cushion the blow of low commodity prices and restricted demand. However, producers in Minnesota and other northern states have questioned the fairness of how the LDP is administered. States farther south are able to begin harvest before farmers in states such as Minnesota and are therefore able to ``lock in'' a more favorable LDP. This has the potential of impacting market signals and driving down the futures price before harvest has begun in northern states. Mr. President, by taking the approach I am about to outline, I have ensured that regions of the country that are currently able to utilize an earlier LDP are not placed at a disadvantage. The components of this legislation are simple, yet provide a common-sense approach to a problem faced by producers in states such as Minnesota. My ``Loan Deficiency Payment Flexibility Act'' would correct this inequity by directing the Secretary of Agriculture to announce that harvest has begun on a particular commodity (i.e. corn or soybeans) and that producers throughout the United States may now utilize the Loan Deficiency Payment. Essentially my bill does two things: It establishes an earlier, more flexible starting date when all producers would have the option of ``locking in'' that day's LDP. They would be able to do so once throughout the duration of the harvest season. Allows a producer to lock-in an LDP for up to 85% of his or her actual yield. Because the LDP is ``locked in'' on paper, no payments are actually made until the crop is harvested and we avoid the problems posed by the old deficiency payment system due to unanticipated high or low yields. Although there is no guarantee that the LDP will be better in the early summer versus the fall, my legislation will afford farmers the opportunity to evaluate the markets and base their decision on what best fits their management plan. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Loan Deficiency Payment Flexibility Act. The idea for this legislation came from Peter Kalenberg, a producer from Stewart, MN, and is an example of how a good idea can be transformed into sound public policy. It is supported by such organizations as the Minnesota Corn Growers, the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation, and the Minnesota Wheat Growers Association. These and many other groups have recognized the need for this legislation. As you know, Loan Deficiency Payments, otherwise known as LDPs, were a key component of the 1996 Farm bill and have helped cushion the blow of low commodity prices and restricted demand. However, producers in Minnesota and other northern states have questioned the fairness of how the LDP is administered. States farther south are able to begin harvest before farmers in states such as Minnesota and are therefore able to ``lock in'' a more favorable LDP. This has the potential of impacting market signals and driving down the futures price before harvest has begun in northern states. Mr. President, by taking the approach I am about to outline, I have ensured that regions of the country that are currently able to utilize an earlier LDP are not placed at a disadvantage. The components of this legislation are simple, yet provide a common-sense approach to a problem faced by producers in states such as Minnesota. My ``Loan Deficiency Payment Flexibility Act'' would correct this inequity by directing the Secretary of Agriculture to announce that harvest has begun on a particular commodity (i.e. corn or soybeans) and that producers throughout the United States may now utilize the Loan Deficiency Payment. Essentially my bill does two things: It establishes an earlier, more flexible starting date when all producers would have the option of ``locking in'' that day's LDP. They would be able to do so once throughout the duration of the harvest season. Allows a producer to lock-in an LDP for up to 85% of his or her actual yield. Because the LDP is ``locked in'' on paper, no payments are actually made until the crop is harvested and we avoid the problems posed by the old deficiency payment system due to unanticipated high or low yields. Although there is no guarantee that the LDP will be better in the early summer versus the fall, my legislation will afford farmers the opportunity to evaluate the markets and base their decision on what best fits their management plan. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation.