Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor ARC Minnesota, and the men and women who volunteer countless hours to improve the quality of life for children and adults with mental retardation and their families. March is officially this nation's ``Mental Retardation Awareness Month''--but the efforts of these individuals should be celebrated year-round. As legislators at the federal level, our support tends to come in the form of funding. It would be an understatement to say that children and adults with mental retardation and their families are faced with unique challenges. Needs differ from family to family. For some, it may be specialized education needs, and for others health care access. And as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I realize the vast array of programs we've created to address the broad spectrum of needs--all of which compete for tax dollars. That is why I have strenuously supported initiatives which provide greater flexibility and control by individuals. Programs such as A+ accounts that help families meet unique educational needs that federal, state and local programs cannot. Legislation like the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act that expands medical savings accounts, ultimately providing more flexible health care access--particularly benefitting those that are uninsured. Mr. President, while Mental Retardation Awareness Month is coming to a close, it doesn't mean that Congress cannot move forward with policies which provide unique solutions to the unique challenges faced by individuals with mental retardation and their families. I would urge my colleagues to join me in commemorating the work of the 1,000 chapters of the ARC, in Minnesota and across this nation, with their pledge to work towards this goal.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I understand there has been time set aside this morning?

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss our long-term energy needs and the energy problems we are currently facing in this country and to express my dismay with the Clinton administration last week because of the neglect of the long-term energy needs of our Nation's economy and its energy consumers. I spent a great deal of time outlining my concern with the administration's failure to develop a coherent plan for reducing our reliance on foreign oil and for increasing our nation's energy security. I outlined my disgust for how this administration has ignored our nuclear waste storage crisis, moved to breach hydropower dams in the northwest, forced regulation upon regulation on other energy production technologies, and displayed a complete disregard for the men and women who find and produce domestic supplies of oil and natural gas. In fact, this administration has virtually ensured that the oil price crisis we're now facing will pale in comparison to the electricity price and supply problems that are just around the corner for our nation's electricity consumers. I know both the energy producers and consumers of Minnesota are astutely aware of the generation and transmission problems that will grip our state in the not-too-distant future. Those problems are not confined to Minnesota. Many States in the upper Midwest face generation and transmission shortages, as do States across the country. Those problems are rooted in the failure of this administration to comprehend the generation needs of a growing economy and the transmission requirements of that growing demand. While I strongly believe that, in the absence of a coherent administration energy policy, Congress needs to step in and forge its own path for meeting the long-term energy needs of our economy, I've come to the floor today to talk about the need for some short-term measures to address high oil prices. In Minnesota, farmers are preparing to enter the fields for spring planting. They're trying to budget for the year and put in place a business plan that will put food on the table and put their children through school. As everyone knows, doing these most basic things is no easy task when commodity prices are low, the weather is uncooperative, and government regulations eat away at the ability to show a profit. This year, however, farmers have a new worry that threatens to make matters even worse--the growing price of diesel fuel and gasoline. Farming is an extremely energy intensive industry. Everything farmers do require energy; from plowing the field to milking the cows, energy is an essential part of a farm's bottom line. Likewise, truckers throughout America are essential to delivering the products we use in our everyday lives to markets across the country. Without truckers, we wouldn't have access to most of the things we all take for granted on a daily basis. Even the internet becomes virtually worthless to consumers if truckers can't deliver to our doorsteps the products we buy. Like farmers, truckers rely heavily upon stable energy costs to make a living and run their businesses. When fuel prices go up, truckers feel the impact first. Too often, they have to absorb the increases in fuel prices, but it's not long before everything from fruits and vegetables to our children's school supplies begin to rise in price as a result of climbing fuel costs. We need look no further than the surcharges now being placed on delivery services to see the compounding negative impacts of increased transportation costs. Many of us in the Senate have witnessed the stream of truckers from across the country who have descended upon Washington, DC, in recent weeks. They have come to their Nation's Capitol not because they want government to give them something, but because they cannot make a living when the Department of Energy is caught napping on the job. They expect, demand, and deserve an Energy Department that comprehends the importance of energy costs to our economy and has a long-term plan for meeting the needs of energy consumers. Mr. President, I know I do not have to remind my colleagues of how the rising cost of oil threatens almost every aspect of our economy and communities. Senior citizens on fixed incomes cannot absorb wild 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 begin addressing this problem, I have joined Majority Leader Trent Lott, Senator Larry Craig, and a number of my colleagues in offering legislation to repeal the 4.3-cent gas tax while protecting the Highway Trust Fund and not spending any of the Social Security surplus. Our legislation is aimed at getting some short-term relief directly into the hands of energy consumers. Our bill will eliminate 4.3-cent tax on gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel so the American consumer can see some relief at the pump when they fuel up for a day on the road, in the field, or traveling to and from school or work. Our bill will eliminate 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 because of the large amounts of fuel they consume. I have heard some of my colleagues argue 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 thousands of gallons of diesel fuel required to operate a family farm or deliver products from California to Maine. 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, truckers, businesses, and families in Minnesota and that's why I strongly support it. For those who are concerned that eliminating the 4.3-cent gas tax is going to deplete important highway and infrastructure funding, we've included language in this legislation that will ensure the Highway Trust Fund is completely protected. The Highway Trust Fund will be restored with on-budget surplus funds from the current fiscal year as well as the fiscal year 2001. If gas prices reach $2 a gallon, on-budget surplus funds will allow additional reductions in the gas tax without impacting the Highway Trust Fund in any way. Depending on the size of the on-budget surplus, our legislation could provide a complete reduction of federal gas taxes until January 1, 2001 if prices rise to, and remain above, the $2 mark. 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 on-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. For me, this legislation boils down to a very simple equation. Are we going to sit by and do nothing as farmers prepare to enter the fields this spring, or are we going to take whatever short-term actions we can to support our farmers and provide them with a needed boost? Are we going to help those most impacted by high fuel costs, or are we going to ignore their needs and let them absorb thousands of more dollars in fuel costs this summer? There is overwhelming proof that the Clinton administration's complete rejection of a national energy policy has caused this mess, so I believe the Congress must step in and help get them out of it. I joined my colleagues in the Senate earlier this year in requesting and receiving emergency releases of Low-Income Home Energy Assistance funding. We did so on at least three separate occasions, and I've supported the President's request for $600 million in additional funding this year. This crucial funding for Minnesota and many other cold weather States was a vital short-term approach to mitigating the impact high fuel costs have had on senior citizens and low-income families. Our constituents were in need, and we responded exactly as we should have. Right now, even more of our constituents are in need, and by responding with a reduction in the Federal gasoline tax, Congress can again act in a way that is expected, even demanded, by our constituents. As I started earlier, the gasoline crisis requires that Congress act now to stem rising energy costs in the near term. It also requires that elected officials and bureaucrats across Washington take a serious look at the direction in which our Nation is headed with its energy policy. I am prepared to take a hard look at any options that might help my constituents right now, and I demand that this administration explore options to ensure that our nation reduces its reliance on foreign oil and establishes a much more sound energy policy for decades to come, to make this country energy independent and not so dependent on foreign sources of energy that when they turn them on or off, it can have dramatic impact on our economy. While those solutions will not happen overnight, I believe a reduction in the gas tax will help. It is going to help now, and it is going to help when that help is needed the most. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the Constitution begins with the ringing words--``We the People''--for a reason. In our great nation, the people are empowered to decide the manner in which we are to be governed and the values we are to uphold. I join 80 percent of the American people in the belief the flag of the United States of America should be protected from physical desecration. And I am blessed to live in a nation where the will of the people can triumph over that of lawyers and judges. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990), which essentially abrogated flag desecration statutes passed by the federal government and 48 states, a constitutional amendment is clearly necessary to protect our flag. This would take the issue of flag protection out of the Courts and back to the legislatures where it belongs. As Chief Justice Rehnquist stated in his dissent, ``Surely one of the high purposes of a democratic society is to legislate against conduct that is regarded as evil and profoundly offensive to the majority of people--whether it be murder, embezzlement, pollution, or flagburning.'' Mr. President, the fight to protect ``Old Glory'' is a fight to restore duty, honor, and love of country to their rightful place. As Justice Stevens noted, ``The flag uniquely symbolizes the ideas of liberty, equality, and tolerance.'' These are the values that form the bedrock of our nation. We are a nation comprised of individuals of varying races, creeds, and colors, with differing ideologies. We need to reinforce the values we hold in common in order for our nation to remain united, to remain strong. Sadly, patriotism is on the decline. That's dangerous in a democracy. Just ask the military recruiters who can't find enough willing young people to fill the ranks of our military during this strong economy. What happened to the pride in serving your country? Where are the Americans willing to answer the call? Protecting the flag reflects our desire to protect our nation from this erosion in patriotism. It signals that our government, as a reflection of the will of the people, believes all Americans should treat the flag with respect. The men and women of our armed forces who sacrificed for the flag should be shown they did not do so in vain. They fought, suffered, and died to preserve the very freedom and liberty which allow us to proclaim that desecrating the American flag goes too far and should be prohibited. To say that our flag is just a piece of cloth--a rag that can be defiled and trampled upon and even burnt into ashes--is to dishonor every soldier who ever fought to protect it. Every star, every stripe on our flag was bought through their sacrifice. The flag of the United States of America is a true, national treasure. Because of all that it symbolizes, we have always held our flag with the greatest esteem, with reverence. That is why we fly it so high above us. When the flag is aloft, it stands above political division and above partisanship. Under our flag, we are united. Most Americans cannot understand why anyone would burn a flag. Most Americans cannot understand why the Senate would not act decisively and overwhelmingly to pass an amendment affording our flag the protection it deserves. This simple piece of cloth is indeed worthy of Constitutional protection. I urge my colleagues to follow the will of ``We the People'' and accord the American flag the dignity it is due by supporting Senate Joint Resolution 14.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend an organization that has given consistently to our communities over the past 89 years. I am proud to honor the National Exchange Club--an organization that can be characterized by the word ``service''--as it celebrates the anniversary of its founding. The National Exchange Club is a volunteer group of men and women dedicated to serving their communities. Founded in 1911 by Charles A. Berkey, the organization has grown from a single group in Detroit, Michigan to nearly 1,000 clubs and 33,000 members throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. in my home state of Minnesota, there are more than 20 clubs committed to making our state and nation a better place to live. In keeping with its rich history of helping others, the Exchange Club has established Child Abuse Prevention as its national project. By utilizing a wide array of educational programs, local clubs work to create public awareness of child abuse and develop relationships with parents to counter abuse. This program has helped more than 140,000 children since 1979. Exchange members participate in a variety of other services, such as Youth Programs and Americanism. The Exchange Club's variety of youth programs encourage and recognize students who display good citizenship, community involvement, and scholastic achievement, and serve as volunteers. Clearly, its efforts are shaping the citizens of the future. Exchange's Americanism efforts spread pride in our nation and work to foster an awareness of the wonderful freedoms with which our country is blessed. The numerous other community service activities the National Exchange Club undertakes are focused on helping the largest number of citizens as possible in their respective communities. All individuals in a community benefit from the club's crime and fire prevention efforts, its Book of Golden Deeds Award, and the Service to Seniors program. For 89 years, the volunteers of the National Exchange Club have dedicated themselves to the betterment of our communities. I applaud them on their achievements and wish them a prosperous future.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on March 27, 2000, from 2 p.m.-4:30 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, is the Senate currently in morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes?

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to talk this afternoon about this country's overall energy policy or, more truthfully, to talk about the lack of this country's overall energy policy. With fuel prices continuing their rise to levels that threaten farmers, truckers, families, and, in fact, our entire economy, I felt I needed to come to the Senate floor for a few minutes to discuss this very important issue. As my colleagues know, I come from a rural State that is heavily dependent on agriculture. When farmers in Minnesota are hurting, it has an impact on businesses, on families, and individuals far removed from the fields of our family farms. Because Minnesota is a large State and so heavily reliant upon agriculture, it is also reliant upon truckers to move products to market and to bring products to communities. It is also important to note that Minnesota is well known as one of our Nation's coldest States, a State where many residents rely on fuel oil to heat their homes. These realities are a few examples of why crude oil prices and supplies are so important to the people of my State. They are also examples of why, since coming to the Congress in 1993, I have been a strong critic of the Department of Energy's failure to strengthen our Nation's energy policies. In the late 1970s, our Nation responded to the energy crisis by creating the Department of Energy and charging it with developing a stable energy policy that would decrease our reliance on foreign sources of energy. At the time, our Nation was reliant on foreign oil for about 35 percent of our needs. When DOE was created, with its charge to create an energy policy to make us more energy independent, our reliance on foreign fuels was 35 percent. Despite the countless billions of dollars taxpayers have invested in the Department of Energy over the past two decades, our Nation is now roughly 60 percent reliant on foreign energy sources, and that reliance is growing and growing rapidly. That's one of the reasons why I'm an original cosponsor of S. Res. 263, which calls on both the administration and Congress to undertake steps which will lead to a long-term reduction of our reliance on foreign sources of energy. Among those steps, the resolution calls on the administration to review all programs, policies, and regulations that place an undue burden on domestic oil and gas producers. I believe this is an important aspect of the DOE's failure to reduce reliance on foreign energy sources. Sadly, this administration's opposition to virtually all exploration and production activities on public lands has rendered our nation's domestic producers incapable of responding to supply shortages. That is why we are in the position we are in today. In fact, since 1992, U.S. oil production has been reduced by 17% while our consumption of oil has increased by 14%. 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% decline in jobs in energy-related fields. In 1990, the United States was home to 657 working oil rigs. Today, there are only 153 working oil rigs scattered across the Nation--a decline of 77 percent; again, a reason the United States did not respond to shortages in supply. During a recent hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, I asked Energy Secretary Bill Richardson if he would consider supporting the exploration of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which is estimated to hold enough oil to offset 30 years of imports from Saudi Arabia. In his response, he indicated that he believes we have sufficient areas for exploration on federal lands without developing ANWR. We have opportunities, he says, to go onto other Federal lands and do the exploration. If we do, the question is, Why haven't we? If that is the case, then why has the Clinton administration failed to move forward in allowing expanded exploration and production activity on those Federal lands instead of leaving us vulnerable to the OPEC nations? Why has this administration waited until an oil price crisis has gripped our nation before suggesting increased development of domestic oil and gas reserves on public lands? Why does this administration still maintain it's opposition to exploring our nation's most promising oil reserves like ANWR? And why does this administration maintain opposition to exploration in the United States based on environmental considerations but has no reservations about calling on other nations to do so? For some reason, this administration seems to believe that it is an environmentally friendly proposition to expect other nations to produce our oil for us. The United States has some of the most stringent environmental standards for oil exploration and production--standards that aren't embraced by many of the oil producing nations of the world. I simply cannot see how sending our nation's energy secretary across the world to beg for increased oil production every time we have a supply problem is sound energy, economic, or environmental policy. I do not connect the two. I believe it's also important to note that this administration is currently engaged in a number of other activities that severely limit our nation's ability to increase our energy independence. First, this administration's failure to remove nuclear waste from civilian nuclear reactors threatens to shut down nuclear power plants across the country. In Minnesota, the DOE's inaction may force the premature closure of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Facility. If it should close, Minnesota will lose 20% of its generation capacity. At the same time, this administration is attempting to breach hydropower dams in the Pacific Northwest--dams that are crucial to the energy needs of that region. In each of these situations, consumers will be forced to rely more heavily upon fossil fuels to replace the loss of clean energy technologies. As if that weren't enough abuse of America's energy consumers, the Clinton administration has undertaken a number of activities that have severely impacted the ability of utilities to turn to coal-fired plants to meet the energy demands of consumers. And I need not remind any of my colleagues of the lack of infrastructure in our nation to dramatically increase our use of natural gas as a reliable, base-load source capable of replacing hydropower, nuclear, and coal-fired generation. What continues to amaze me is how this administration sends its ``yes men'' in front of Congress to pledge support for each of these generation technologies. I do not hear the administration telling Congress they want to eliminate coal-fired generation. But the EPA is doing its best to regulate coal plants out of business. I have never heard the administration say they want to close down nuclear plants, but I have yet to see them lift a finger to keep them operating. When anyone in this body confronts the administration with the impending brown outs and energy price increases its policies are going to force, all its representatives can say is that they're working on it and they support renewable energy technologies. 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'd like to believe that this administration has a grasp on the long- term energy needs of our nation and has plans for meeting those needs, but the actions of the administration and the DOE's failures on the spectrum of energy challenges prove otherwise. That's why, in a letter to Secretary Richardson last week, I urged him to take immediate actions to allow for both on and offshore oil and gas exportation and production in states that want to do so. I urged him to take immediate steps to ensure that nuclear power plants such as Minnesota's Prairie Island Facility are not forced to shut down due to DOE inaction. I urged him to work with the Department of Interior to resist attempts to reduce the use of hydropower. And I urged him and the administration to undertake an immediate review of all regulations that impose undue burdens on the development of domestic energy sources that could reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Long ago, the Congress charged the U.S. Department of Energy with the job of reducing our nation's reliance on foreign oil and establishing a long-term, stable energy policy to guide our economy for decades to come. It goes without saying that the Department has failed miserably in that, its most basic mission. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming days, weeks and months in enacting 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 on public lands, including offshore reserves and the tremendous potential of ANWR. I remain committed to finding a resolution to our nation's nuclear waste storage crisis--as 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 unbelievable neglect of the long-term energy needs of our nation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support HR 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. This very important legislation would help millions of American seniors who choose to, or must work after retirement. Under current law, the Social Security benefits of those seniors ages 65 though 69 who continue to work will be reduced by $1 for each $3 of earnings over $17,000. In other words, they will be taxed at 33.3 percent of their earnings above the threshold. However, the onerous tax burden on our seniors does not stop there. These seniors are also subject to a 15.3 percent payroll tax, and a 15 percent income tax. Combined with the earnings test, these seniors are paying taxes of over 60 percent on their earnings from working. If their earnings bump up their income, their Social Security benefits are then taxed. The tax bite could take 68 to 91 percent of their additional earnings. Mr. President, this is absurd. We must correct this unfair tax burden on our seniors. When Social Security was set up 65 years ago during the Great Depression, jobs were scarce, workers were younger and many could not find work to support their families. One of the intentions of the Social Security program was to encourage older workers to retire, so that younger workers could find a job. Today, our situation is dramatically different. The economic and demographic conditions in the U.S. are not what they were when Social Security was established. Our strong economy has created a tight labor market. After filling over 20 million new jobs during this economic expansion, we still have a job shortage, particularly skilled workers. It is projected that this shortage will continue for the next 5 to 10 years. Lower birth rates and a longer life expectancy mean that the number and relative size of the older population is growing rapidly. The number of Americans over age 65 has grown from 8 percent in 1950 to 14 percent in 1990 and is projected to reach 22 percent in 2030. This demographic change has triggered a serious Social Security crisis. In 1940 there were 100 workers to support 1 retiree. Today that ratio has dropped to 3 workers supporting 1 retiree. In less than 20 years, that ratio will decrease to 2 to 1. As a result, we have a $20 trillion unfunded Social Security liability. The earnings test penalty has worsened this situation. It discourages seniors from working, even though their skills are much needed in the labor market. If allowed to work without penalty, they will continue to pay payroll taxes into the Social Security system which will help us work toward solvency of the system. Another important reason we must get rid of the earnings test is that Social Security is a very poor investment for Americans. Americans pay a significant amount of payroll taxes through their working life but face low and declining returns from Social Security, and some receive less in benefits than they have paid in payroll taxes. Their Social Security benefits cannot even begin to meet their pre-retirement standard of living. Many seniors have no choice but to continue to work--and others want to work for the joy of it. Over the past 15 years, goods purchased mainly by seniors increased 6 percentage points more than goods purchased by the general public. Their medical costs skyrocketed 156 percent. As inflation on medical and pharmaceutical goods continues to rise, older Americans' hard-earned Social Security benefits are worth less and less. Their purchasing power will continue to diminish. I believe the earnings test on Social Security benefits is wrong and unfair because Social Security benefits are earned benefits for many senior citizens. The Social Security benefits which working seniors are losing due to the earnings test penalty are benefits they have rightfully earned by contributing to the system throughout their working years before retiring. These are benefits they should not be losing just because they are trying to survive by supplementing their Social Security income. Reducing Social Security benefits upon additional earnings is just double taxation. As health care and other costs continue to grow, the incomes of more and more senior citizens are falling along with their standard of living. This earnings test hurts seniors who choose, or must work after retirement to maintain their standard of living or to pay for costly health insurance premiums, medical care, prescriptions and many other expenses which increase in retirement years. This is particularly true for seniors with lower-incomes who must work and depend on their earned income for survival. Mr. President, we cannot let this practice continue. Eliminating the earnings test on Social Security benefits would reverse this trend, and help responsible senior citizens. The federal government has entered into a sacred covenant with the American people to provide retirement benefits once contribution commitments are made. It is the government's contractual duty to honor that commitment. The government cannot and should not take money from seniors that is rightfully theirs. Mr. President, I'd like to briefly discuss the health of our Social Security system. Social Security benefits will exceed payroll taxes by 2014 or soon. President Clinton claims he is saving Social Security by using the interest savings that will result from paying down the government debt held by the public. However, his proposal does not push back the date that Social Security will run a deficit by a single year, and the transfer from the general fund to Social Security does not cover a fraction of the shortfall. Mr. President, without reform, the unfunded liability of Social Security will crowd out all of our discretionary spending. It will create financial hardship for millions of baby boomers and impose a heavy burden on future generations. We must address this vitally important issue as quickly as we can. I believe the best way to fix Social Security is to move it from the current pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded one, and the immediate step we should take is to lock in every penny of the Social Security surplus safe from government spending, and put it toward Americans' retirement. My lockbox would sequester spending if re-estimates result in spending any of our Social Security surplus. In addition, we need to tell Americans the whole truth about Social Security since payroll taxes are the largest tax that many families will ever pay, accounting for up to one-eighth of the total lifetime income they will make. That's why I also support the Gregg amendment which would require the government to provide information on the financial status of the program. This amendment is along the same line of my legislation, S. 1104, the Social Security Information Act. Reliable information on Social Security is crucial to enable Americans to better understand the value of their Social Security investment and to help them determine exactly how much they should supplement their expected Social Security benefits with other savings in order to have a certain level of retirement security. Mr. President, let me close by saying it is critical that we repeal the earnings test penalty. We owe our seniors nothing less than to remove this senseless provision and give them the opportunity to sustain and hopefully improve their standard of living by allowing them to work without additional tax penalties. It is equally important that, by continuing to pay into the Social Security system, our seniors will actually give us more time to reform it--which ultimately benefits everyone.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to address the crop insurance reform proposal. I thank you for the opportunity to address this legislation that I think is so crucial to the economic health of farmers in Minnesota and across the country. I have appreciated the hard work and effort put into this bill, and I believe it is one of the key reform issues the Congress must address this year to create an economic climate that will enable America's farmers to thrive. As a sponsor of crop insurance legislation in both the 105th and 106th Congress, I am certainly no stranger to this issue. Working with producers, rural lenders, economists, and other stakeholders, I think we have fashioned a bill that would encourage more participation in the program, help encourage producers to buy higher levels of coverage, and will also reduce the instances of ``moral hazard'' to keep everybody's premiums lower, and also help maintain the integrity of the program. Mr. President, I first introduced my crop insurance bill in the 105th Congress, and I am pleased that much of my own legislation has now been incorporated into the Roberts-Kerrey measure, including pilot programs that would offer farmers premium discounts for using whole farm units or one crop units of insurance, and allowing producers to cross State and county boundaries to form insurable units, plus a pilot program permitting producers to ensure their crops are based upon a future price. Also, I am pleased that this bill will now also include an expansion of the dairy options pilot program. I think this is also a very important tool for producers who are attempting to weather the ups and downs in the dairy market. So I think it is great that we have included this provision that is going to help dairy farmers in the Midwest and across the country as well. Participation in the Federal Crop Insurance Program has increased from 10 percent of the eligible acres in 1980 to about 70 percent of eligible acres last year, 1999. I think that is encouraging, but we still need higher levels of participation if our farm is to successfully manage its risk in the face of ever-changing global markets. Like almost no other form of employment, producers are subject to a host of variables that impact their bottom line, including weather, disease, production levels in other countries, foreign trade, increasing production costs, and changing consumer demand. All are out of the control of the producer. As most of you know, America's farmers are fiercely independent and ever optimistic and were glad to get the freedom to make their own production decisions that came with the 1996 farm bill. However, part of the promise of Freedom to Farm was that there would be accompanying efforts to bring about trade negotiations to reduce barriers, regulatory reform, and improvements to the Crop Insurance Program to help producers manage the risk in open markets. Unfortunately, the administration has not eased the regulatory burden on farmers, and we have not initiated new WTO talks or negotiations. I am confident this crop insurance reform legislation remains one of the most important pieces of the farm prosperity puzzle. Tax relief and tax reform for our farmers across the board is also very important because it directly impacts the bottom line, the net income of our farmers and the ability of our farmers to pass farms from one generation to another. Again, I am proud to be one of the early advocates for reform and that the basic concepts of my proposal again were carried into this reform bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to speedily approve this bill so it can be reconciled with the House bill and be completed as soon as possible. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of President Clinton's trip to India. For too long, the cold war, and India's leadership of the non-aligned movement, strained what should have been the natural bond between our two great democracies. The end of the cold war has now brought us together. India is a true friend to the United States in a region where respect for democracy is rare. India has made great strides since achieving independence. Literacy has doubled, life expectancy has doubled, and infant mortality has been more than halved. However, India recognizes that commitment to democracy must be accompanied by free-market principles in order for prosperity to flourish. India's initial pursuit of socialist economic policies, including nationalizing production, subsidizing industries, and raising tarriffs and other trade barriers, while imposing high taxes, caused its economy and its people to suffer. With the end of the cold war, India's experiment with a centralized economic system is waning. India is starting to liberalize the economy, prompting foreign investment and reducing barriers to trade. The results are encouraging: India's growth rate, which had been stuck at 3 percent, is now exceeding 6 percent, and the outlook is promising for further improvement. While a commitment to socialism may still be enshrined in its Constitution, the economic reforms India is embracing are clearly leading the nation in a positive, new direction. For example, India's prowess in the high-technology sector makes it an able partner in that area. The recent decision to open its insurance and telecommunication sectors to foreign investors is emblematic of the kind of changes that will enable India to achieve its potential. Mr. President, the only shadow over President Clinton's visit is the eruption of violence in Kashmir. Indian and Pakistani troops started exchanging heavy artillery fire along the disputed border a day ahead of his arrival in the region. While Kashmir has been a source of conflict between India and Pakistan for nearly a half century, the recent nuclear and ballistic missile tests by India and Pakistan have compelled the international community to increase pressure on the parties to resolve this dispute. There has been a recognition of the very real danger that Kashmir could become the ``flashpoint'' which sparks a wider regional war. I hope President Clinton uses this visit to encourage officials of India and Pakistan, and representatives of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to begin an official dialogue. Mr. President, there is an Indian saying that, ``it is the spirit of the quest that determines its outcome.'' The President's trip is an important symbol of the renewed spirit of cooperation between the United States and India. I look forward to the achievements we will reach together, as both partners and friends, in the next half century.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Irish-American Heritage Month and take this occasion to salute the generations of Irish descendants who have helped my home state of Minnesota grow and prosper. When millions of Irish men, women, and children fled their homeland and the great potato famine that gripped Ireland beginning in the 1840s, they looked to America as a place of abundant food, freedom, and opportunity. Most came here with little, yet the riches they have given back to this country and our state cannot be measured. At the urging of Archbishop John Ireland, early leader of the Minnesota Catholic Church, many of those first immigrants became employees of the Great Northern Railroad and settled in Minnesota, along the railroad lines heading toward Montana. Since then, our Irish- American population has flourished; surveyed for the 1990 census, 574,183 Minnesotans claimed at least some Irish ancestry. During Irish-American Heritage Month, and on the occasion of Saint Patrick's Day, I salute Minnesota's ``sons and daughters of Ireland'' and offer to our large and enthusiastic Irish community the heartfelt words of the familiar Irish blessing: May the road rise up to meet you, May the wind be always at your back, May the sun shine warm upon your face, And the rains fall soft upon your fields, And until we meet again, may God hold you in the palm of His hand.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Recently, I came to the floor to address Federal dairy policy, specifically focusing on an erroneous but often repeated claim that dairy compacts are necessary today to guarantee a supply of fresh, locally produced milk to consumers. During that time, I dealt with how this is a myth similar to urban legends that are assumed to be true because they are repeated so often. Another dairy myth that you may hear a great deal is that dairy compacts preserve small dairy farms. Mr. President, this is simply not true, and this afternoon I want to point out the reasons why it is untrue. The Northeast Dairy Compact sets a floor price that processors must pay for fluid milk in the region. Ostensibly, this is supposed to provide small farmers with the additional income necessary to help them survive during hard times. In its practical effect, it doesn't work that way at all. In fact, It has provided financial incentives for big dairy farms to get even bigger. Consider the cases of Vermont and Pennsylvania. Vermont is in the Northeast Dairy Compact and Pennsylvania is not. Before the formation of the compact in 1997, Vermont had 2,100 dairy farms with an average herd size of 74 cows per farm. By 1998, the number of farms had fallen nearly 10 percent to 1900 dairy farms, but the average herd size had increased to 85 cows per farm. That is a 15-percent increase. Meanwhile, during the same period of time in Pennsylvania--again, without the compact--the number of dairy farms fell 3 percent, from 11,300 to 10,900, but the average herd size increased only from 56 cows to 57 cows. Thus, in a compact State such as Vermont, the number of dairy farms fell significantly while the average herd size per farm increased significantly. And then compare that to the noncompact State of Pennsylvania during the same period. Their number of dairy farms dropped by a smaller number, and farm herd sizes increased by an even smaller percentage. So this does not appear in any way to be a compact to protect small dairy farms. The extra income that the compact provides to large farms accelerates their domination of the industry by helping them get larger and stronger. Since the amount of compact premium a producer receives is based entirely on the volume of production, the small amount of additional income a small farmer receives is often inconsequential and does nothing to keep small farms from exiting the industry. In fact, during the first year of the compact, dairy farms in New England declined at a 25 percent faster rate than the average rate of decline during the previous 2-year period. The assertion that dairy compacts do not protect small farmers is not just something that this Minnesota Senator claims but compact supporters themselves have acknowledged as much. In the latter part of 1998, the Massachusetts commissioner of agriculture declared that the compact, after 16 months, had not protected small dairy farms. The commissioner consequently proposed a new method for distributing the compact premium to class I milk, capping the amount of premium any one dairy farm could receive and redistributing the surplus. Farms of average size or smaller would have seen their incomes increase by as much as 80 percent. However, large farm dairy interests were predictably able to kill this proposal because the assistance to small dairy farmers would have come, of course, out of their pockets. So while compact supporters perpetuate a sentimental picture of compacts enabling small family farmers to continue to work the land, the bottom line is that compacts hasten the demise of the small farmer while enriching the bigger producers. This claim that compacts save small dairy operations is often made in conjunction with the claim that compacts are being unfairly opposed by large-scale Midwest dairy farms that want to dominate the market. Well, this, too, is untrue because the average herd size for a Vermont dairy farm is 85 cows per herd, while the average herd size for a Minnesota dairy farm is only 57 head. Thus, Vermont dairy farms average in size almost 50 percent larger than Minnesota dairy farms. Similarly, the South, which has also sought to have its own compact, also has larger farms than the Midwest. The average herd size of a Florida dairy farm is 246 head. That is almost four times larger than the upper-Midwest average. Incidentally, Minnesota producers would love to be getting the mailbox price that farmers in Florida and the Northeast are getting. In November of last year, the mailbox price--which is the actual price farmers receive for their milk--in the upper-Midwest was $12.09 per hundredweight. In the Northeast, it was $15.02. And in Florida, due to the milk marketing order system, it was $18.72 per hundredweight. So in the Midwest it was $12; in the Northeast it was $15--that is $3 per hundredweight more--and again, in Florida, it was $18.72, or nearly $7 a hundredweight more, or 50 percent more for milk produced in Florida than in Minnesota. How are you going to compete against this type of unfairness in the compact system and in the milk marketing orders? So the Northeast price is 24 percent higher than Minnesota's, and Florida's price is almost 55 percent higher. Again, Minnesota farmers would love to get those kinds of mailbox prices, but our Government program--and again, the larger farmers in these areas unfairly benefit from this program--ensures that they don't and that these other regions do. While dairy compacts are again not saving small dairy farms in compact States, they are impacting the bottom line of small-scale producers in non-compact States; in other words, those dairy farmers outside the compact. Compacts are a zero-sum game that shifts producer markets and income from one region of the country to competing regions. They don't have small family farms, and they certainly don't deserve the continuing sanction and the support of the Congress. Again, there are other dairy myths that must be exposed, and the truth must be told. I will be back on the floor soon to take another look at a misleading claim, try to dissect it a little bit, and put some fairness into what we often hear in the dairy debates. If we look at this system and why it is unfair, again to look at the prices farmers receive for the milk they produce, why is it fair that if you are in the Midwest, you get $12.60 or $12.70 per hundredweight, but if you are in New England in the compact States, you get $15.20, and if you are a farmer in Florida, that somehow you can receive $18.72 per hundredweight? I don't know. We don't sell computers that way. We don't sell oranges that way. We don't sell automobiles that way. Why is it milk is different? Why is the Government picking winners and losers among those who are in the dairy industry? If you are in the Midwest, the Government says, well, you are going to be a loser, and if you are in Florida or in the compact States, our Government programs say you are going to get more so you can be a winner. I don't think we should have this type of competition and unfair playing field with the Government picking dairy winners and losers. I hope we bring some sanity into our dairy program. I will be back on the floor to take on another misleading claim we often hear in these dairy debates. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Camp Fire Boys and Girls as it celebrates its 90th birthday. Founded in 1910 as the Camp Fire Girls, it focuses on educational and leadership programs to mentor America's young women, and at the time was the nation's only organization specifically for girls. My own state of Minnesota was one of the first states to develop a local chapter for Camp Fire Girls, with a small group of eight and their 21-year-old leader. Minnesota Governor John Lind purchased 63 acres on Lake Minnewashta in 1924 to provide Camp Fire members with a permanent campground. This concept caught on, as two years later, 1000 feet of shoreline on Green Lake was purchased for the St. Paul council. Many of the early camping ventures were for girls in high school. But many councils, like Minnesota, developed a Blue Bird program to provide younger girls with activities all their own. This additional age group completed the support Camp Fire brought to girls up to age 18. To better serve all of America's youth, Camp Fire opened its doors and allowed boys to become members in 1975. In 1994, the St. Paul and Minneapolis councils merged and now serve not only the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, but most of Southern Minnesota. This partnership has provided Camp Fire the opportunity to maintain its flexibility and remain responsive to the changing needs of children. That Camp Fire has consistently adapted to the changes necessitated by changing times is perhaps the organization's strongest asset in reaching out to America's youth. Camp Fire was not intended to solve the problems of the world, but rather provide the right tools to the children who will. From the beginning, Camp Fire has used the ideals behind Work, Health, and Love (Wohelo) to guide our youth in developing self-esteem and responsibility. Wohelo was the name of the organization's first camp in Vermont and more than 50 years later, in 1962, the Wohelo medallion was created to bestow the highest honor to those who personify the meaning of the Camp Fire organization. Today, there are 125 local councils in 41 States serving some 629,000 young Americans. Camp Fire provides direct access to youth through development programs in three areas: club programs, self-reliance programs, and outdoor programs. Club programs provide children with regular, informal educational meetings in local communities led by volunteers or paid leaders. In elementary schools, self-reliance courses are led by trained, certified teachers who educate children about personal safety and self-care. Last year, more than 6,000 children were involved in this program in Minneapolis alone. And in St. Paul, teens are involved in the teaching process to broaden their community involvement. The outdoor programs provide an outdoor setting for children to better understand the world we live in while developing vision, commitment, and participation skills in team and individual activities. I am honored to wish the Camp Fire Boys and Girls across America a happy 90th birthday. I wish it continued success in reaching our youth by inspiring individual potential while having fun.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor the Volunteers of America on the occasion of its Founders' Week Celebration. Volunteers of America was founded in 1896 by Christian social reformers Ballington and Maud Booth in New York with the mission of ``reaching and uplifting'' the American people. Soon afterwards, more than 140 ``posts'' were established across the nation. One of these posts sprang to life in my home state of Minnesota. Volunteers of America serves people in many ways, with a special emphasis on human services, housing, and health services. The organization is noted for being the nation's largest nonprofit provider of quality, affordable housing for low-income families and the elderly. Currently, more than 30,000 people reside in Volunteers of America housing. Along with its commitment to providing homes, Volunteers of America also focuses on helping the homeless, through emergency shelters, transitional housing, jobs training, and counseling. In Minnesota, Volunteers of America is one of the most important providers of social services and workers with children, adults, and seniors. Children are provided residential treatment, shelter, and foster care. Adult services include help filling housing needs and skills training for individuals with developmental disabilities. Senior services include home-delivered meals and home health care assistance. None of this would be possible without the more than 11,000 employees and 300,000 volunteers who work with the Volunteers of America. Volunteers of America of Minnesota is home to more than 350 employees and over 1,000 volunteers. Volunteerism is a community necessity, and I extend my utmost thanks and appreciation to those who are providing our country and my state with such an invaluable resource through their participation in Volunteers of America. I again applaud the Volunteers of America during this Founders' Week for its extraordinary record of service. For more than 100 years, Volunteers of America has been there for countless Minnesotans; given its good work and record of success, I am confident this vital organization will be with us for many years to come.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation addressing a very important issue-fairness for the Guard and Reserve members in our armed forces. Le me begin with a February 3rd report from the Washington Post titled ``A Tough Goodbye: Guard Members Leave for Nine Months in Bosnia.'' It reads ``Sgt. Deedra Lavoie was alone, after leaving her two young children with her ex-husband. Sgt. Bill Wozniak, hugging his 3-year-old daughter, was worried about not having the same job when he returns in nine months. Staff Sgt. Stephen Smith won't have a home to come back to: Movers have cleared out his Annapolis apartment, which he can't afford to keep while overseas.'' This brings home, Mr. President, the real hardship that thousands of Guards and Reservists, and their families, are facing today. The traditional duty of the National Guards and reservists was to keep domestic peace or fight in wars. But as the number of our Armed Forces has fallen by more than 1 million personnel since 1988, increasing numbers of our Guards and Reserve members are being pulled out of the private sector and into what amounts to at times to be full- time military service. They are often called on to carry out overseas peacekeeping, humanitarian and other missions. Their deployment time is longer than ever before in peacetime. Today we rely heavily on our Guardsmen and Reservists to support overseas contingency operations. Since 1990, they have been called to service in Operation RESTORE HOPE in Somalia, Operation UPHOLD DEMOCRACY in Haiti, Operation JOINT ENDEAVOR/JOINT GUARD in Bosnia, Operation STABILIZE in Southeast Asia and Operation TASK FORCE FALCON in Kosovo. Mr. President, the statistics speak for themselves: Work days contributed by Guardsmen and Reservists have risen from 1 million days in 1992, to over 13 million days last year. Without the service of these citizen soldiers, we would need an additional force of 35,000 soldiers to do the job. 43,000 Guardsmen and Reservists have served in Bosnia and Kosovo from December 1995 through March 1, 2000. This is 33 percent of the total Armed Forces personnel participating in that region during that period. Mr. President, Guardsmen and Reservists are willing to do their duty and serve when they are called, but increasingly frequent overseas deployments create tremendous hardship for them, and their families, as well their employers. We need to give our reserve forces fair treatment by improving the quality of life both for them and their dependents. We must help their employers adjust as well. That's why I am introducing the Military Guard and Reserve Fairness Act of 2000. This bill would do the following: First, my legislation would exempt federal tax on the base pay for enlisted Guardsmen and Reservists and exempt federal tax on the base pay of Guard and Reserve officers up to the highest level of that if enlisted Guardsmen and Reservists' base pay during their overseas deployment. The majority of Guardsmen and Reservists take pay cuts when called up for involuntary overseas deployment, and sustain a huge financial loss. Our active duty military personnel enjoy federal tax exemption on their base pay, why not our Guardsmen and Reservists who perform the same duty as full-time military personnel? Secondly, my legislation would provide a tax credit to employers who employ Guardsmen and Reservists. The tax credit would be equal to 50 percent of the amount of compensation that would have been paid to an employee during the time that the employee participates in contingency operations. However, the credit is capped at $2000 for each individual Reservist employee and a maximum of $30,000 for all employees. This provision would apply to the self-employed as well. Despite the fact that most businesses are fully supportive of the military obligations of their employees, studies show that the increasingly long overseas deployments have created a new strain on Guard/Reserve-employer relations. One of the reasons is that the unplanned absence of Guard/Reservist-employees creates a variety of problems for employers. Employers have to hire and train temporary employees, budget for overtime, or reschedule work and deadlines. As a result, it increases employer costs, reducing revenue and profits. This is particularly problematic for small business and the self-employed. The Defense Department acknowledges the increased use of the Guard and Reserve and that unplanned contingency operations do create problems for employers. DOD suggests that a financial incentive may help to correct some of the problems. The tax credit included in my bill would offset at least some of the expense that Guard and Reserve employers face, and help reduce tension with employees. Third, the Military Guard and Reserve Fairness Act would provide federal income tax deductions for transportation, meals and lodging expenses incurred in performance of Guard and Reserve military duty. Mr. President, many Guardsmen and Reservists have to travel to a Reserve center, such as a National Guard Armory, far away from their home areas for drills or training. Often Guardsmen and Reservists incur expenses for transportation, meals, lodging and other necessities. Before 1986, members of the Guard and Reserve could deduct these costs as business expenses. But the Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated this deduction. This is not fair. This nation requires our Guard and Reserve members to perform their duty but also expects them to bear the expense. Restoring the deductibility would help restore fairness for Reservists. The Military Guard and Reserve Fairness Act would also include a number of provisions that would give our Guard and Reserve members fair treatment by improving their quality of life. It would extend space-available travel (``Space-A'') to Reservists and the National Guard, to travel outside of the United States--the same level as retired military, and gives the Guardsmen and Reservists the same priority status as active duty personnel when traveling for their monthly drills. It would grant so-called ``gray area retirees'' the right to travel Space-A under the same conditions as the retired military receiving retired pay as well. In addition, my legislation would provide Guardsmen and Reservists, when traveling to attend monthly military drills, the same billeting privileges as active duty personnel. The bill would also remove the annual Guard and Reserve retirement point maximum--upon which retirement pensions are based--and allow retirement pensions to be based upon the actual number of points earned annually. Finally, my legislation would extend free legal services to Guardsmen and Reservists by Judge Advocate General officers for a time equal to twice the length of their last period of active duty service. Mr. President, our Guard and Reserve members are being called upon to perform more overseas active duty assignments to keep pace with the rising number of U.S. peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. I believe that this increase in overseas active-duty assignments for Guard and Reserve component members merits the extension of military benefits for our Nation's citizen soldiers. It is only fair to close these disparities. The passage of my Military Guard and Reserve Fairness Act would restore fairness to our Guard and Reserve members, and it would greatly increase morale and the quality of life for our National Guard and Reserves and prevent problems of recruitment and retention in the future. Hence, it would strengthen our national defense and increase our military readiness. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of our military Guard and Reserves.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, March 21, at 2:15 p.m., the Senate begin consideration of Calendar No. 439, H.R. 5, and it be considered under the following time agreement: Two hours on the bill to be equally divided in the usual form between the two managers; One amendment to be offered by the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee making a correction to the House bill, limited to 10 minutes of debate to be equally divided; One amendment to be offered by Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska regarding Social Security reform, and limited to 1 hour to be equally divided in the usual form; Also, one amendment to be offered by Senator Gregg regarding Social Security reform and limited to 1 hour to be equally divided in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that no other amendments or motions be in order, other than motions to table, and following the disposition of the above described amendments and the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two amendments described in the agreement be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, it is the leader's understanding that these are the amendments that will be offered on Tuesday, unless technical changes are required which would be cleared by the Finance chairman and ranking member.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 273, submitted earlier by Senator Hutchison of Texas.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I proudly rise today to pay tribute to the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. on the occasion of the 88th anniversary of its founding. To honor an organization that gives back so much to our communities, Congress has established March 12-18 as National Girl Scout Week. Created in 1912 by Juliette Gordon Law, the first Girl Scout group consisted of only 18 girls. Since then, the Girl Scouts have evolved into the largest voluntary organization for girls in the world. Nearly 3.5 million active members strive toward excellence in character, conduct, patriotism and service--attributes that are vital to a young person's development. The Girl Scouts have given direction to over 40 million American women throughout its rich 86-year history. Girl Scouting empowers young women from every background with the tools they will need to be the outstanding leaders of the future. For example, we all know about those famous Girl Scout cookies. I have certainly enjoyed my fair share. Through their annual cookie sales, girls learn valuable life lessons in goal setting, money management, and community involvement. Of course, there is much more to scouting than the sale of cookies, such as the organization's long tradition of serving others without the expectation of reward. Girls are encouraged to incorporate service into their lives, whether it takes the form of common, everyday acts around the house or community service work outside the home. Instilled with compassion for others, Girl Scouts head into the world as caring, valuable members of society. Additionally, I take this opportunity to commend the 850,000 adult volunteers who serve as leaders for the Girl Scouts. Their devotion to providing opportunities for girls to meet their potential is unparalleled. In my home state of Minnesota, nearly 20,000 volunteers devote their time and energy to over 60,000 Girl Scouts. Clearly, without these dedicated volunteers, the Girl Scouts would not provide the effective leadership it offers today. For 88 years, the members and adult volunteers of the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. have worked tirelessly for the betterment of this nation. I congratulate them on their achievements and wish for them a prosperous future as the Girl Scouts continue to nurture the lives of America's young women.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 435, S. Res. 251.