Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Clarence Lien of Forest Lake, MN. On June 7, 1999, I had the great honor of presenting a much-belated Purple Heart to Clarence. He is most deserving of this long overdue recognition. I, therefore, take this opportunity to congratulate Clarence and thank him for his service and sacrifice. President Ronald Reagan said, ``Freedom is not something to be secured in any one moment of time. We must struggle to preserve it everyday. And freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.'' We must always remember the great debt of gratitude we owe to those like Clarence who have served our country in the Armed Forces, protecting the freedom we all too often take for granted. Again, congratulations, Clarence. I salute you.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to America's small businesses--the backbone of our nation's vibrant economy. As my colleagues may know, this week is recognized as ``National Small Business Week.'' As a former small businessman, I believe small businesses have always been one of the leading providers of jobs throughout our communities. Today, there are over 24 million small businesses that serve as the principal source of new jobs, employing more than 52 percent of the private workforce. In particular, I am very proud of the tremendous growth in women- owned businesses over the last several years. According to the National Foundation for Women Business Owners, there are more than 166,000 women-owned businesses in my home state of Minnesota, employing 349,800 people and generating $42.3 billion in sales. Between 1987 and 1996 the number of women-owned businesses increased dramatically, by over 73 percent. Mr. President, one of the unique aspects of Minnesota's small business community is the large number of high-tech companies throughout our state. I certainly envision an important role for small, high-technology businesses in meeting the nation's science and technology in the years ahead. Small businesses account for 28 percent of jobs in high-technology sectors and represent 96 percent of all exporters, underscoring the important role the small business community will have toward developing a 21st century economy that is globally and technologically driven. During ``National Small Business Week,'' I am proud to share with my colleagues the special recognition recently granted by the Small Business Administration to two dedicated Minnesotans: Comfrey Mayor Linda Wallin and Ms. Supenn Harrison, a restaurateur in Minneapolis. Mr. President, in 1997 several communities in Minnesota were threatened by terrible tornadoes and floods. Almost immediately, Mayor Wallin provided courageous leadership to protect the community of Comfrey from this dangerous natural disaster. In addition to establishing a command center to coordinate efforts to rebuild and provide relief to residents, Mayor Wallin secured assistance from the SBA to rebuild a civic center, a new library, and an elementary school. This year, the SBA has honored her with the ``Phoenix Award'' for those who have displayed confidence, optimism, and love of community while surmounting near disaster. Ms. Supenn Harrison, a successful CEO of Sawatdee, a Thai restaurant in Minneapolis, represents the finest of Minnesota's small business owners. Ms. Harrison is Minnesota's 1999 honoree as one of the fifty finalists to be considered for the National Small Business Person of the Year. Ms. Harrison's investment in her company and employees through constant efforts to update equipment, implement new marketing strategies, and encourage high employee morale underscores her commitment to a strong economy. Mr. President, I am honored to recognize the contributions of Minnesota's small business community during ``National Small Business Week.'' I look forward to working with my colleagues to promote an economic climate where small businesses can succeed through federal regulatory relief, tax reduction, a skilled workforce, and free trade policies.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the national Federated Boys Clubs, known today as the Boys and Girls Club of America. Although the Boys Clubs were not organized nationally until 1906, origins of the club can be traced as far back as the mid-1800s. As early as 1853, a Club-like facility was established in New York City for the purpose of lodging newsboys. However, the first Boys Club, as we know it today, wasn't established until 1860. The Dashaway Club in Hartford, Connecticut is recognized as the first known Boys Club, which provided afterschool activities for children from disadvantaged homes. Soon the idea of a shelter for youth to spend time during non-school hours caught on. These clubs offered a safe place for children to congregate and stay out of trouble. Rapidly, Boys Clubs sprouted up around the country. In the early years, the clubs were concentrated mostly in New England. By 1906, 53 separate Boys Clubs were in existence. It was decided that these clubs should somehow work collectively. On May 13, 1906, a group of businessmen and Boys Clubs representatives met to discuss the idea of a national federation. Thus, the Boys Clubs of America was born. Although the clubs continue to operate autonomously, the national organization provides staff recruitment and training, program research, facility construction, fundraising, and marketing. In addition, the national club addresses legislative and public policy issues affecting young people. In 1956, the Boys Club celebrated its 50th anniversary and received a U.S. Congressional Charter. As more and more clubs were formed, the organization grew and began serving girls as well as boys. In 1990, the name was officially changed to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Today, there are over 2,200 clubs operating nationwide, serving over three million children. Minnesota is proud to be home to 21 Boys and Girls Clubs, serving 33,456 children. The Boys and Girls Clubs provides hope, inspiration, and the opportunity for children to realize their full potential as citizens. These clubs provide guidance, support, and leadership, while encouraging youth to abstain from drugs and alcohol, strive for scholastic achievement, become involved in community service, develop personal talents such as music or art, and explore career opportunities. Dedicated volunteers have helped the Boys and Girls Clubs of America become a success. Mr. President, on the 93rd anniversary of its founding, I applaud the hard work and dedication of the men, women and youth who have contributed to the success of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Through their persistence and encouragement, youth across the country have benefitted greatly.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act to include birds of the Ratitae order, such as ostriches, emus, and rheas, in the mandatory USDA meat inspection program. Currently producers of ratitae participate in a voluntary inspection program, but costs are borne by the producers and can add as much as $2 per pound to the price of the product. The USDA currently absorbs the cost of inspection for the more traditional agricultural products, such as turkey, poultry, and beef. I introduce this legislation to encourage agricultural entrepreneurship and diversification, and to level the economic playing field for those farmers willing to take innovative risks to bring new products to American and global consumers. Ratite meat is reported to be high in protein and low in fat and cholesterol, and byproducts from the animals are being studied by universities and medical labs for their potential uses. I would also note that farmers engaged in producing ratite meat can now be found all over the country, not just in Minnesota. With the increasing focus in our country on food safety, I believe this bill is a small but important step toward both encouraging development of alternative agricultural products and ensuring the safety of the food our citizens consume. I ask my colleagues to join with me in support of this bill to help family farms diversify into new products that will provide them with new income sources and give American consumers more variety at the grocery store.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act to include birds of the Ratitae order, such as ostriches, emus, and rheas, in the mandatory USDA meat inspection program. Currently producers of ratitae participate in a voluntary inspection program, but costs are borne by the producers and can add as much as $2 per pound to the price of the product. The USDA currently absorbs the cost of inspection for the more traditional agricultural products, such as turkey, poultry, and beef. I introduce this legislation to encourage agricultural entrepreneurship and diversification, and to level the economic playing field for those farmers willing to take innovative risks to bring new products to American and global consumers. Ratite meat is reported to be high in protein and low in fat and cholesterol, and byproducts from the animals are being studied by universities and medical labs for their potential uses. I would also note that farmers engaged in producing ratite meat can now be found all over the country, not just in Minnesota. With the increasing focus in our country on food safety, I believe this bill is a small but important step toward both encouraging development of alternative agricultural products and ensuring the safety of the food our citizens consume. I ask my colleagues to join with me in support of this bill to help family farms diversify into new products that will provide them with new income sources and give American consumers more variety at the grocery store.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to promote awareness of missing children and honor those who selflessly work to search and rescue the thousands of children who disappear each year. As my colleagues may know, today is recognized as ``National Missing Children's Day.'' According to a recent U.S. Department of Justice study, annually there are over 114,000 attempted abductions of children by nonfamily members, 4,500 child abductions reported to police, and 438,200 children who are lost, injured, or otherwise missing. These numbers are truly cause for concern by all Americans. As a parent, I believe local communities, schools, faith-based organizations and law enforcement should be encouraged to work together to protect the most vulnerable members of our society--children. From a federal perspective, I am proud to be a cosponsor of legislation to reauthorize the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program through the next five years. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children operates under a Congressional mandate and works in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice on Delinquency Prevention. I know my colleagues would agree that the Center has an outstanding record of safely recovering missing children across the country, and most recently achieved a 91 percent recovery rate. Mr. President, as we remember the many missing children across the nation today, I want to especially recognize the relentless work and effort to protect our nation's children by Minnesota's Jacob Wetterling Foundation. The Foundation was established by Jerry and Patty Wetterling after their son, Jacob, was abducted by a masked man at gunpoint near the Wetterling home in St. Joseph, Minnesota. Today, the Jacob Wetterling Foundation is a national, non-profit foundation committed to preventing the exploitation of children through educating, raising awareness and responding to families who are victims of abduction. Mr. President, our children represent our future and we must continue our work to keep them safe. Again, I commend the numerous volunteers, organizations, and government agencies who all work on a daily basis to find missing children and prevent others from disappearing.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 25 minutes in morning business.

Mr. GRAMS. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. The third bill I am introducing today deals with the flow of information related to an individual's Social Security contribution. Most working Americans are poorly prepared for their retirement. That is because of a disturbing lack of information. Congress needs to help them better plan for retirement by providing useful and accurate information about the Social Security benefits they are going to receive. In other words, let people know exactly what the system is, how much is in the trust fund, how much money they can expect to receive at retirement, and what will be the rate of return of their investment. Americans currently receive Social Security information through the personal earnings and benefits estimate statements or the PEBES, provided by the Social Security Administration. However, a recent GAO report shows that the report, although useful, is actually incomplete and it is difficult for many Americans to understand exactly what is in the account for them at Social Security. As a result, many workers, even those near retirement, continue to overestimate their likely Social Security benefits, which, bottom line, threatens their quality of life throughout their retirement years. Social Security taxes are the largest tax that many families will ever pay. It will account for up to one-eighth of the total lifetime income they will make. Few Americans know the value or the yield of their investment, because the Government never tells them the whole truth about Social Security by providing them with this key information. 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. This is particularly important for some ethnic minorities, because research shows that African Americans have lower rates of return from Social Security. They get less back from the system than others who pay in. Low-income, single, African American males have a negative rate of return today. As I said, overall it is about a 1 percent rate of return. For many, it will be a negative rate of return. But for low- income, single, African American males today, they already have a negative rate of return on the money they pay into the system. My bill would improve the reports by requiring the Social Security Administration to provide an estimate of the Social Security benefits a worker is going to receive in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, as well as an estimated rate of return the worker is projected to receive from Social Security. In real dollars, it means today if you are 20 years old, the report says when you retire you could expect to receive about $98,000 a year in retirement benefits. You say, that is great, 98,000 a year; but if you take in the inflation-adjusted amount throughout those 40 years in buying power, it would be less than $14,000 in today's money. So you need to know exactly what you are going to get at retirement and what the buying power of those dollars is going to be 40 years from now so that you can make better plans on how you are going to plan for your retirement. Given the crucial role of information about Social Security in retirement planning and the fact that, beginning this year, the statements from Social Security will be mailed annually to every eligible individual over 25, immediate improvement of these standards is imperative. These numbers are already going to be sent out, so this isn't an added cost, this isn't asking for a new program from the Government; this is saying that the report the Social Security Administration is going to send to every American over 25 needs to be more accurate than the information provided today. Information will not solve all the problems we have with Social Security, but I think it will surely give working Americans some useful tools to help them better plan for retirement. In closing, American workers labor mightily to put money aside for retirement. They should have full property rights to their money. They deserve the security of owning their retirement benefits and savings. My legislation gives American workers legal protection to their retirement savings. It will stop politicians from cutting their benefits to spend money in other unrelated programs out of our Social Security trust fund. It also allows American workers maximum freedom to better plan for their retirement by giving them more accurate information on their Social Security benefits. In closing, retirement security is essential to millions of Americans and we must do everything we can to help them achieve that security and the peace of mind that will go along with it. My legislation charts a course which I believe will lead us there.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take a little time this morning to talk about Social Security. I know our Nation has been engaged in Social Security reform discussions for about 2 years now kind of formally. But, informally, many have been talking about what we are going to do to ensure a safe, sound Social Security system in the future. We all expected that we could work in a bipartisan manner during this Congress to be able to complete the immense task of saving and strengthening Social Security for the American people. Unfortunately, President Clinton has failed to take leadership on this issue and has failed to present an honest plan to this Congress to address Social Security's rapid approaching crisis. There is widespread reluctance to move forward on reform due to political considerations. Yet, if we keep delaying essential reform until after the ``next election''--it is always after the next election--we will never be able to complete our goal of ensuring retirement security for future generations of Americans. Now, on the positive side, the debate has surely raised the public's awareness of their own retirement security shortcomings. It has brought attention to the Social Security crisis and has led to a variety of solutions to fix the system. I believe this is a healthy debate, one that we must continue to encourage. I am sure that when our elected officials muster the political will to make some of those hard choices we face, the Nation will be ready to support those choices. Regardless of when we actually consider Social Security reform, we must continue the job of educating Americans about the importance of savings and retirement planning. We must continue to debate the role of future Social Security benefits in our retirement security decisions. That is why I am here. I rise today to introduce three pieces of legislation as first steps to save Social Security. To outline the bills, my first bill, very simply, would grant every current and future Social Security beneficiary a legal right to those Social Security benefits. The second is a comprehensive plan to move Social Security from the current pay-as-you-go system to one that is a fully funded, personalized retirement system, to ensure a safe, sound, secure retirement program that maximizes benefits for the retiree. The third bill would provide real information about the costs and the benefits under the current Social Security system. Mr. President, each working American devotes his or her entire life to a job, or series of jobs, and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars in Social Security taxes into the retirement system. In fact, Social Security taxes are the largest tax that many families will ever pay, accounting for up to one-eighth of the total lifetime income that will go into Social Security. Many people, including myself, believe that Social Security benefits are our ``earned right.'' We think that because we have paid Social Security taxes, we are legally entitled to receive Social Security benefits. But this ``earned right'' is nothing but an illusion--an illusion created by politicians who call Social Security taxes ``contributions'' and make Social Security sound like it is a regular insurance program. The truth is that the American people do not have any legal right to their Social Security benefits, though they pay Social Security taxes all of their lives. Their benefits are always at the mercy of the Government and politicians who can adjust them and can even spend them on unrelated Government programs. This fact--that Americans currently have no legal right to Social Security--was decided by the courts when the Social Security was just getting started. Mr. President, it was back in 1937, less than 2 years after the creation of Social Security, that the Supreme Court decided in the case of Helvering v. Davis that Social Security was not an insurance program. The court held: The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way. So, basically, Social Security is just a tax, not a retirement system. The Court also pointed out: Congress did not improvise a judgment when it found that the award of old-age benefits would be conducive to the general welfare. The President's committee on economic security made an investigation and report . . . with the loss of savings inevitable in periods of idleness, the fate of workers over 65, when thrown out of work, is little less than desperate. . . . Moreover, laws of the separate States cannot deal with this effectively. . . .Only a power that is national can serve the interests of all. What it meant was that Social Security was not and is not an insurance program at all, but a tax--a tax, pure and simple--that leaves retirement benefits to be actually determined by the political process--not the benefits of the plan, but the political process. This decision was later confirmed in another important case, Fleming v. Nestor. In this case, the Supreme Court more expressly ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time. Mr. President, this is a very interesting and important case. Ephram Nestor was a Bulgarian immigrant who paid Social Security taxes from 1936 until he retired in 1955. He received a $55.60-per-month Social Security check during his retirement. But in 1956, Nestor was deported for having been a member of the Communist Party in the 1930s. His Social Security checks were stopped in accordance with the law. Nestor sued the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits. The Supreme Court rejected his claim, clearly stating: To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ``accrued property rights'' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands. The Court also held: It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments. It strikes me that these Supreme Court decisions prove that if Social Security is considered more of a welfare program, there is no assurance that retirees will receive benefits now or in the future if they are judged unworthy, or if the IOUs owed to the Social Security Trust Funds are deemed unnecessary to repay. It also shows, contrary to common belief, that Social Security is not backed by the full faith and credit of the government and is not a government-guaranteed investment. I believe these decisions--which we rarely see referenced, for obvious reasons--are unfair and wrong, and must be corrected. In my view, workers must have a full legal right to receive government-guaranteed Social Security benefits. The reason is simple: despite these court cases, I believe most people think that the federal government should provide benefits to the American people for their retirement, if those people have paid into the system. It's our moral and contractual duty to honor that commitment, and ensure the program is more of an insurance policy than a welfare program. Coming demographic changes will soon create huge cracks in the Social Security program--if the government fails to make the changes necessary to address the crisis ahead, it would be wrong to let current or future beneficiaries bear that burden. As a first step to saving Social Security, legislation I am introducing today would grant every current and future Social Security beneficiary an ``earned right,'' or legal right, to their Social Security benefits plus an accurate inflation adjustment. This could be achieved by requiring the government to issue U.S. Treasury-backed certificates specifying the level of guaranteed benefits. Mr. President, this legislation, the Social Security Benefits Guarantee Act, is not at all complicated. All it does is to create an ``earned right'' to Social Security, which every American deserves and should be given in the first place. It shows that regardless of how we may reform the system in the future, retirees will earn a return on the investment they make in the form of payroll taxes. By granting Americans this legal right, we are taking away uncertainties resulting from the growing political debate. Social Security will no longer be subject to Washington's manipulation, and the IOUs will be repaid. Implementing my legislation would force Congress and the Administration to come up with an honest plan to save and strengthen the Social Security system. But more importantly, it would put millions of current and future Social Security beneficiaries at ease, allowing them to sleep at night without fearing the loss or reduction of their retirement benefits. Mr. President, once we have secured Social Security benefits, taking the difficult steps to reform the Social Security system will be easier. The current system has served us well until now. The changing demographics of our society makes it impossible for the system to survive without reform. I believe a fully-funded, market-based, personalized retirement system would give all workers full property rights to their retirement investment. Not only could personal retirement account, or PRA, benefits be three to five times higher than current Social Security benefits, workers would actually own the money in their account and could pass the assets on to their children. It would be part of your estate, which today, as you know, Social Security does not transfer. Congress would no longer spend the surplus money. That's the reason I am today re-introducing my legislation, the ``Personal Security and Wealth in Retirement Act.'' Mr. President, Americans today are living longer and retiring earlier than ever before. American retirement security is supposedly built on a three-legged stool: Social Security, private pensions, and personal savings. These are the three cornerstones of a secure retirement. Unfortunately, today these cornerstones have eroded. Without major repair, the stool will collapse, causing serious financial hardship for millions of Americans. Most Americans rely increasingly on Social Security for their retirement income. Not everyone has a private pension and some are unable to save. Yet Social Security, upon which rests their hopes for a secure retirement, is headed for bankruptcy. Benefits for 76 million baby boomers and future generations of retirees will not be there unless something is done soon. I believe the best solution to our retirement crisis is to reform Social Security by moving it from a pay-as-you-go retirement system to a fully-funded, market based system. The legislation I am introducing today will do just that. The first criticism you will hear is that a market-based retirement system is too risky. However, my plan would guarantee benefits for current and future beneficiaries, while retaining and expanding the current safety net under Social Security. At the same time, workers would have the freedom to control their funds and resources for their own retirement security within certain safety and soundness parameters. Workers and their employers could divert 10 percent of a worker's income into personal retirement accounts. In addition, workers could also contribute to personal retirement accounts they've established for their non-working children. Let me focus on the proposed safety net provisions under my plan: One key component of my proposal is to ensure that a safety net will be there at all times for disadvantaged individuals. This can be done without government guarantees of investments or overly strict regulation of investment options. Under this legislation, a safety net would be set up and would involve a guaranteed minimum benefit level: 150 percent of the poverty level. When a worker retires, if his or her PRA fails to provide the minimum retirement benefits for whatever reason the government would make up the difference. So nobody would retire into poverty. They would retire at least with a minimum of 150 percent of the poverty level. The same applies to survivor and disability benefits. If a worker dies or becomes disabled, and his or her PRA doesn't accumulate sufficient funds to provide minimum survivor and disability benefits, the government would match the shortfalls. This simple safety net is necessary, and the minimum benefit would guarantee that no one in our society would be left impoverished in retirement, while still allowing workers to enjoy the freedom and prosperity achievable under a market-based retirement system. This would operate in a manner similar to the federal government's Thrift Savings program, which includes safe investments and a far higher return than Social Security. If the system works for us, others should also be able to benefit from it. Another feature of the fully funded retirement system I'm outlining could provide better survivor and disability benefits than the current Social Security system offers. Under my plan, for instance, when a worker dies, his family would inherit all the funds accumulated in his PRA. I use my father as an example. He died at the age of 61, and from Social Security received a check for $253 as a death benefit. But that was all. Under our system, all the money that you have paid in during a lifetime of working would be yours. And, if you happen to die early, it would then be a part of your estate and transferred to your heirs. The savings wouldn't disappear into the black hole of the Social Security trust funds, or become tangled in a survivors' benefit bureaucratic debate. The system would also provide, besides the retirement savings, a survivors benefit package. My plan requires the funds that manage PRAs to use part of their annual contribution or yield to buy life and disability insurance, supplementing their accumulated funds to at least match the promised Social Security survivors and disability benefits. By requiring retirement funds to purchase life and disability insurance for everyone, all workers in each individual fund would be treated as a common pool for underwriting purposes. The insurance would be purchased as a group policy not by individual workers by investment firms or financial institutions, thus avoiding insurance policy underwriting discrimination while providing the largest amount of benefits at the lowest possible cost. Mr. President, again, a major criticism of a market-based personal retirement account system is that it's inherently volatile, subject to the whims of investors and the market, exposing a worker's retirement income to unnecessary risks. My plan specifically addresses this concern by requiring the approved investment firms and financial institutions that manage PRAs to have insurance against investment loss. By approximating the role of the FDIC, we ensure that every PRA would generate a minimum rate of return of at least 2.5 percent, which is more than current Social Security benefits. In fact, Social Security is paying less than 1 percent today, and for future generations it would actually be a negative rate of return. Regardless of the ups and downs of the markets, workers would still do better under this system than under the current Social Security program. This is another safety net built into my plan to give the American people peace of mind when it comes to their retirement investment. To further reduce risks to a worker's PRA, my legislation also requires that rules, regulations, and restrictions similar to those governing IRAs would apply to personal retirement accounts. PRAs must be properly structured and follow strict, sensible guidelines set forth by the independent federal board that will oversee the system. In choosing qualified investment firms and financial institutions to manage the PRAs, the oversight board is responsible for examining the credibility and ability of these companies, and then approving them as PRA managers accordingly. In other words, to put in place a very safe and sound retirement system, much like the FDIC is in banks. People are confident their savings is protected. This would be the same with their retirement accounts. They would be protected. This will generate much better returns, as much as three to five times more at retirement than today's Social Security--three to fives times more benefits when you retire than under the current Social Security plan because personal retirement accounts, unlike Social Security, make real investments which produce new income and produce wealth. That means improved benefits for everybody, including low-wage earners, without the redistribution of private income.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take a little time this morning to talk about Social Security. I know our Nation has been engaged in Social Security reform discussions for about 2 years now kind of formally. But, informally, many have been talking about what we are going to do to ensure a safe, sound Social Security system in the future. We all expected that we could work in a bipartisan manner during this Congress to be able to complete the immense task of saving and strengthening Social Security for the American people. Unfortunately, President Clinton has failed to take leadership on this issue and has failed to present an honest plan to this Congress to address Social Security's rapid approaching crisis. There is widespread reluctance to move forward on reform due to political considerations. Yet, if we keep delaying essential reform until after the ``next election''--it is always after the next election--we will never be able to complete our goal of ensuring retirement security for future generations of Americans. Now, on the positive side, the debate has surely raised the public's awareness of their own retirement security shortcomings. It has brought attention to the Social Security crisis and has led to a variety of solutions to fix the system. I believe this is a healthy debate, one that we must continue to encourage. I am sure that when our elected officials muster the political will to make some of those hard choices we face, the Nation will be ready to support those choices. Regardless of when we actually consider Social Security reform, we must continue the job of educating Americans about the importance of savings and retirement planning. We must continue to debate the role of future Social Security benefits in our retirement security decisions. That is why I am here. I rise today to introduce three pieces of legislation as first steps to save Social Security. To outline the bills, my first bill, very simply, would grant every current and future Social Security beneficiary a legal right to those Social Security benefits. The second is a comprehensive plan to move Social Security from the current pay-as-you-go system to one that is a fully funded, personalized retirement system, to ensure a safe, sound, secure retirement program that maximizes benefits for the retiree. The third bill would provide real information about the costs and the benefits under the current Social Security system. Mr. President, each working American devotes his or her entire life to a job, or series of jobs, and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars in Social Security taxes into the retirement system. In fact, Social Security taxes are the largest tax that many families will ever pay, accounting for up to one-eighth of the total lifetime income that will go into Social Security. Many people, including myself, believe that Social Security benefits are our ``earned right.'' We think that because we have paid Social Security taxes, we are legally entitled to receive Social Security benefits. But this ``earned right'' is nothing but an illusion--an illusion created by politicians who call Social Security taxes ``contributions'' and make Social Security sound like it is a regular insurance program. The truth is that the American people do not have any legal right to their Social Security benefits, though they pay Social Security taxes all of their lives. Their benefits are always at the mercy of the Government and politicians who can adjust them and can even spend them on unrelated Government programs. This fact--that Americans currently have no legal right to Social Security--was decided by the courts when the Social Security was just getting started. Mr. President, it was back in 1937, less than 2 years after the creation of Social Security, that the Supreme Court decided in the case of Helvering v. Davis that Social Security was not an insurance program. The court held: The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way. So, basically, Social Security is just a tax, not a retirement system. The Court also pointed out: Congress did not improvise a judgment when it found that the award of old-age benefits would be conducive to the general welfare. The President's committee on economic security made an investigation and report . . . with the loss of savings inevitable in periods of idleness, the fate of workers over 65, when thrown out of work, is little less than desperate. . . . Moreover, laws of the separate States cannot deal with this effectively. . . .Only a power that is national can serve the interests of all. What it meant was that Social Security was not and is not an insurance program at all, but a tax--a tax, pure and simple--that leaves retirement benefits to be actually determined by the political process--not the benefits of the plan, but the political process. This decision was later confirmed in another important case, Fleming v. Nestor. In this case, the Supreme Court more expressly ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time. Mr. President, this is a very interesting and important case. Ephram Nestor was a Bulgarian immigrant who paid Social Security taxes from 1936 until he retired in 1955. He received a $55.60-per-month Social Security check during his retirement. But in 1956, Nestor was deported for having been a member of the Communist Party in the 1930s. His Social Security checks were stopped in accordance with the law. Nestor sued the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits. The Supreme Court rejected his claim, clearly stating: To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ``accrued property rights'' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands. The Court also held: It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments. It strikes me that these Supreme Court decisions prove that if Social Security is considered more of a welfare program, there is no assurance that retirees will receive benefits now or in the future if they are judged unworthy, or if the IOUs owed to the Social Security Trust Funds are deemed unnecessary to repay. It also shows, contrary to common belief, that Social Security is not backed by the full faith and credit of the government and is not a government-guaranteed investment. I believe these decisions--which we rarely see referenced, for obvious reasons--are unfair and wrong, and must be corrected. In my view, workers must have a full legal right to receive government-guaranteed Social Security benefits. The reason is simple: despite these court cases, I believe most people think that the federal government should provide benefits to the American people for their retirement, if those people have paid into the system. It's our moral and contractual duty to honor that commitment, and ensure the program is more of an insurance policy than a welfare program. Coming demographic changes will soon create huge cracks in the Social Security program--if the government fails to make the changes necessary to address the crisis ahead, it would be wrong to let current or future beneficiaries bear that burden. As a first step to saving Social Security, legislation I am introducing today would grant every current and future Social Security beneficiary an ``earned right,'' or legal right, to their Social Security benefits plus an accurate inflation adjustment. This could be achieved by requiring the government to issue U.S. Treasury-backed certificates specifying the level of guaranteed benefits. Mr. President, this legislation, the Social Security Benefits Guarantee Act, is not at all complicated. All it does is to create an ``earned right'' to Social Security, which every American deserves and should be given in the first place. It shows that regardless of how we may reform the system in the future, retirees will earn a return on the investment they make in the form of payroll taxes. By granting Americans this legal right, we are taking away uncertainties resulting from the growing political debate. Social Security will no longer be subject to Washington's manipulation, and the IOUs will be repaid. Implementing my legislation would force Congress and the Administration to come up with an honest plan to save and strengthen the Social Security system. But more importantly, it would put millions of current and future Social Security beneficiaries at ease, allowing them to sleep at night without fearing the loss or reduction of their retirement benefits. Mr. President, once we have secured Social Security benefits, taking the difficult steps to reform the Social Security system will be easier. The current system has served us well until now. The changing demographics of our society makes it impossible for the system to survive without reform. I believe a fully-funded, market-based, personalized retirement system would give all workers full property rights to their retirement investment. Not only could personal retirement account, or PRA, benefits be three to five times higher than current Social Security benefits, workers would actually own the money in their account and could pass the assets on to their children. It would be part of your estate, which today, as you know, Social Security does not transfer. Congress would no longer spend the surplus money. That's the reason I am today re-introducing my legislation, the ``Personal Security and Wealth in Retirement Act.'' Mr. President, Americans today are living longer and retiring earlier than ever before. American retirement security is supposedly built on a three-legged stool: Social Security, private pensions, and personal savings. These are the three cornerstones of a secure retirement. Unfortunately, today these cornerstones have eroded. Without major repair, the stool will collapse, causing serious financial hardship for millions of Americans. Most Americans rely increasingly on Social Security for their retirement income. Not everyone has a private pension and some are unable to save. Yet Social Security, upon which rests their hopes for a secure retirement, is headed for bankruptcy. Benefits for 76 million baby boomers and future generations of retirees will not be there unless something is done soon. I believe the best solution to our retirement crisis is to reform Social Security by moving it from a pay-as-you-go retirement system to a fully-funded, market based system. The legislation I am introducing today will do just that. The first criticism you will hear is that a market-based retirement system is too risky. However, my plan would guarantee benefits for current and future beneficiaries, while retaining and expanding the current safety net under Social Security. At the same time, workers would have the freedom to control their funds and resources for their own retirement security within certain safety and soundness parameters. Workers and their employers could divert 10 percent of a worker's income into personal retirement accounts. In addition, workers could also contribute to personal retirement accounts they've established for their non-working children. Let me focus on the proposed safety net provisions under my plan: One key component of my proposal is to ensure that a safety net will be there at all times for disadvantaged individuals. This can be done without government guarantees of investments or overly strict regulation of investment options. Under this legislation, a safety net would be set up and would involve a guaranteed minimum benefit level: 150 percent of the poverty level. When a worker retires, if his or her PRA fails to provide the minimum retirement benefits for whatever reason the government would make up the difference. So nobody would retire into poverty. They would retire at least with a minimum of 150 percent of the poverty level. The same applies to survivor and disability benefits. If a worker dies or becomes disabled, and his or her PRA doesn't accumulate sufficient funds to provide minimum survivor and disability benefits, the government would match the shortfalls. This simple safety net is necessary, and the minimum benefit would guarantee that no one in our society would be left impoverished in retirement, while still allowing workers to enjoy the freedom and prosperity achievable under a market-based retirement system. This would operate in a manner similar to the federal government's Thrift Savings program, which includes safe investments and a far higher return than Social Security. If the system works for us, others should also be able to benefit from it. Another feature of the fully funded retirement system I'm outlining could provide better survivor and disability benefits than the current Social Security system offers. Under my plan, for instance, when a worker dies, his family would inherit all the funds accumulated in his PRA. I use my father as an example. He died at the age of 61, and from Social Security received a check for $253 as a death benefit. But that was all. Under our system, all the money that you have paid in during a lifetime of working would be yours. And, if you happen to die early, it would then be a part of your estate and transferred to your heirs. The savings wouldn't disappear into the black hole of the Social Security trust funds, or become tangled in a survivors' benefit bureaucratic debate. The system would also provide, besides the retirement savings, a survivors benefit package. My plan requires the funds that manage PRAs to use part of their annual contribution or yield to buy life and disability insurance, supplementing their accumulated funds to at least match the promised Social Security survivors and disability benefits. By requiring retirement funds to purchase life and disability insurance for everyone, all workers in each individual fund would be treated as a common pool for underwriting purposes. The insurance would be purchased as a group policy not by individual workers by investment firms or financial institutions, thus avoiding insurance policy underwriting discrimination while providing the largest amount of benefits at the lowest possible cost. Mr. President, again, a major criticism of a market-based personal retirement account system is that it's inherently volatile, subject to the whims of investors and the market, exposing a worker's retirement income to unnecessary risks. My plan specifically addresses this concern by requiring the approved investment firms and financial institutions that manage PRAs to have insurance against investment loss. By approximating the role of the FDIC, we ensure that every PRA would generate a minimum rate of return of at least 2.5 percent, which is more than current Social Security benefits. In fact, Social Security is paying less than 1 percent today, and for future generations it would actually be a negative rate of return. Regardless of the ups and downs of the markets, workers would still do better under this system than under the current Social Security program. This is another safety net built into my plan to give the American people peace of mind when it comes to their retirement investment. To further reduce risks to a worker's PRA, my legislation also requires that rules, regulations, and restrictions similar to those governing IRAs would apply to personal retirement accounts. PRAs must be properly structured and follow strict, sensible guidelines set forth by the independent federal board that will oversee the system. In choosing qualified investment firms and financial institutions to manage the PRAs, the oversight board is responsible for examining the credibility and ability of these companies, and then approving them as PRA managers accordingly. In other words, to put in place a very safe and sound retirement system, much like the FDIC is in banks. People are confident their savings is protected. This would be the same with their retirement accounts. They would be protected. This will generate much better returns, as much as three to five times more at retirement than today's Social Security--three to fives times more benefits when you retire than under the current Social Security plan because personal retirement accounts, unlike Social Security, make real investments which produce new income and produce wealth. That means improved benefits for everybody, including low-wage earners, without the redistribution of private income.

Mr. GRAMS. The third bill I am introducing today deals with the flow of information related to an individual's Social Security contribution. Most working Americans are poorly prepared for their retirement. That is because of a disturbing lack of information. Congress needs to help them better plan for retirement by providing useful and accurate information about the Social Security benefits they are going to receive. In other words, let people know exactly what the system is, how much is in the trust fund, how much money they can expect to receive at retirement, and what will be the rate of return of their investment. Americans currently receive Social Security information through the personal earnings and benefits estimate statements or the PEBES, provided by the Social Security Administration. However, a recent GAO report shows that the report, although useful, is actually incomplete and it is difficult for many Americans to understand exactly what is in the account for them at Social Security. As a result, many workers, even those near retirement, continue to overestimate their likely Social Security benefits, which, bottom line, threatens their quality of life throughout their retirement years. Social Security taxes are the largest tax that many families will ever pay. It will account for up to one-eighth of the total lifetime income they will make. Few Americans know the value or the yield of their investment, because the Government never tells them the whole truth about Social Security by providing them with this key information. 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. This is particularly important for some ethnic minorities, because research shows that African Americans have lower rates of return from Social Security. They get less back from the system than others who pay in. Low-income, single, African American males have a negative rate of return today. As I said, overall it is about a 1 percent rate of return. For many, it will be a negative rate of return. But for low- income, single, African American males today, they already have a negative rate of return on the money they pay into the system. My bill would improve the reports by requiring the Social Security Administration to provide an estimate of the Social Security benefits a worker is going to receive in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, as well as an estimated rate of return the worker is projected to receive from Social Security. In real dollars, it means today if you are 20 years old, the report says when you retire you could expect to receive about $98,000 a year in retirement benefits. You say, that is great, 98,000 a year; but if you take in the inflation-adjusted amount throughout those 40 years in buying power, it would be less than $14,000 in today's money. So you need to know exactly what you are going to get at retirement and what the buying power of those dollars is going to be 40 years from now so that you can make better plans on how you are going to plan for your retirement. Given the crucial role of information about Social Security in retirement planning and the fact that, beginning this year, the statements from Social Security will be mailed annually to every eligible individual over 25, immediate improvement of these standards is imperative. These numbers are already going to be sent out, so this isn't an added cost, this isn't asking for a new program from the Government; this is saying that the report the Social Security Administration is going to send to every American over 25 needs to be more accurate than the information provided today. Information will not solve all the problems we have with Social Security, but I think it will surely give working Americans some useful tools to help them better plan for retirement. In closing, American workers labor mightily to put money aside for retirement. They should have full property rights to their money. They deserve the security of owning their retirement benefits and savings. My legislation gives American workers legal protection to their retirement savings. It will stop politicians from cutting their benefits to spend money in other unrelated programs out of our Social Security trust fund. It also allows American workers maximum freedom to better plan for their retirement by giving them more accurate information on their Social Security benefits. In closing, retirement security is essential to millions of Americans and we must do everything we can to help them achieve that security and the peace of mind that will go along with it. My legislation charts a course which I believe will lead us there.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Reserving the right to object, I also rise in strong support of Mr. Enzi----

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Enzi's bill to offset all of the nonemergency funding in the supplemental with an across the board cut in non-defense discretionary accounts. As one who vigorously opposed the omnibus appropriations bill of last year which resulted in spending far above our commitments, I was surprised that here we have yet another attempt to circumvent our budget principles--and to spend part of the Social Security surplus nearly all of us pledged to devote only to Social Security. While there are true emergencies in the supplemental I support, such as the agriculture spending and funds directly related to our Kosovo operation, I strongly oppose inclusion of other defense spending that clearly should be considered in the normal appropriations process. And I oppose beefing up the FEMA budget three times over the President's request as well. What all of this is about is just a gimmick to claim we are not breaking the caps as we proceed into the fiscal year 2000 appropriations process by providing some funding now. The last estimate I saw indicated only $2.5 billion of this funding will be outlayed in this fiscal year. So--why are we appropriating $15 billion? Mr. President, I have no objection to this additional spending--if we pay for it. Senator Enzi's legislation, which I have cosponsored does pay for it. This is the responsible thing to do, since most of this bill--over $13 billion is not emergency spending. Those who believe in integrity of our budget process and in the need to preserve Social Security will vote for this bill.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of all those who serve their fellow citizens through their active participation in the nation's emergency care system to make my remarks on the introduction of S. 9-1-1, the ``Emergency Medical Services Act of 1999.'' Mr. President, as a Senator who is deeply concerned about the every- expanding size and scope of the federal government, I've long believed Washington is too big, too clumsy and too removed to deal effectively with many of the issues in which it already meddles. However, I also believe there's an overriding public health interest in ensuring a viable and seamless EMS system across the country. By designating this week as national EMS Week, our nation recognizes those individuals who make the EMS system work. There's no more appropriate time to reaffirm our commitment to EMS by addressing some of the problems the system is presented with daily. I've often said that Congress has a tendency to wait until there's a crisis before it acts, but Congress cannot wait until there's a crisis in the EMS system before we take steps to improve it. There's simply too much at stake. Whether we realize it or not, we all depend on and expect the constant readiness of emergency medical services. To ensure that readiness, we need to make efforts to secure the stability of the system. This has been my focus in drafting the EMSEA. The most important thing we can do to maintain the vitality of the EMS system is to compel the government to reimburse for the services it says it will pay for under Medicare. In the meetings I've had with ambulance providers, emergency medical technicians, emergency physicians, nurses, and other EMS-related personnel, their most common request is to base reimbursement on a ``prudent layperson'' standard, rather than the ultimate diagnosis reached in the emergency room. While the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 [BBA] contained a provision basing reimbursement for emergency room services on the prudent layperson standard, I find it troubling HCFA refuses to include ambulance transportation in its regulations as a service covered by the patient protections enacted as part of Medicare Plus Choice. I also believe it is unacceptable that beneficiaries participating in fee-for- service are not granted the protections afforded to those in Medicare Plus Choice. There has been a great debate in the Senate for the last year regarding protections for consumers against HMOs. Many of my colleagues would be startled to learn of the treatment many seniors have experienced at the hands of their own government through the Medicare fee-for-service program. The federal government would do better to lead by example rather than usurping powers from state insurance commissioners by imposing federal mandates on health insurance plans already governed by the states. To illustrate how prevalent the problem of the federal government denying needed care to Medicare beneficiaries is, I want to share with you a case my staff worked on relating to Medicare reimbursement for ambulance services. I mentioned this case last year, but it is worth repeating. Please keep in mind that this is the fee-for-service Medicare program. In 1994, Andrew Bernecker of Braham, Minnesota was mowing with a power scythe and tractor when he fell. The rotating blades of the scythe severely cut his upper arm. Mr. Bernecker tried to walk toward his home but was too faint from the blood loss, so he crawled the rest of the way. Afraid that his wife, who was 86 years old at the time, would panic--or worse, have a heart attack--he crawled to the pump and washed as much blood and dirt off as he could. His wife saw him and immediately called 911 for an ambulance. He was rushed to the hospital where Mr. Bernecker ultimately spent some time in the intensive care unit and had orthopedic surgery. A tragic story. In response to the bills submitted to Medicare, the government sent this reply with respect to the ambulance billing: ``Medicare Regulations Provide that certain conditions must be met in order for ambulance services to be covered. Medicare pays for ambulance services only when the use of any other method of transportation would endanger your health.'' The government denied payment, claiming the ambulance wasn't medically necessary. Apparently, Medicare believed the man's wife--who was, remember, 86 years old--should have been able to drive him to the hospital for treatment. Mr. and Mrs. Bernecker appealed, but were denied and began paying what they could afford each month for the ambulance bill. After several years of paying $20 a month, the Berneckers finally paid off the ambulance bill. Medicare later reopened the case and reimbursed the Berneckers, but unfortunately, Mr. Bernecker is no longer with us. I have a few more examples I'd like to share with my colleagues to assure them this is not an isolated incident. In fact, I encourage all of my colleagues to meet and speak with their EMS providers to see first-hand how the lack of consistent reimbursement policy impacts their ability to provide services. This one provision of the Emergency Medical Services Efficiency Act will bring fairness and clarity for both the beneficiary and the EMS provider trying to help those in need. In Austin, Minnesota, a 66-year-old male was found in a shopping center parking lot slumped over the steering column of his car. The car was in drive, up against a light pole with the wheels spinning and the tread burning off the tires. An Austin policeman at the scene requested an ambulance and the driver was transported to the emergency room. Ambulance transportation reimbursement was denied based on the assumption that the driver could have used other means to get to the emergency room. Apparently, since he was already in the car, he was supposed to drive himself to the hospital despite being unresponsive. Another case in Minnesota involved a 74-year-old male who was complaining to his family about an upset stomach when he collapsed. The frightened family began CPR and summoned an ambulance via 9-1-1. The city's fire department was the first on scene and applied an automatic external defibrillator, which advised against shock. Paramedics arrived and continued CPR en route to the emergency room. The patient ultimately died of cardiac arrest. Again, Medicare fee-for-service denied payment for the ambulance because it was deemed unnecessary. Finally, Mr. President, a 74-year-old female complained of flu-like symptoms. Her family checked on her and found she was acting confused and strange. They summoned emergency medical services. Paramedics arrived to find the woman awake but confused as to time and events. They discovered she had a history of cardiac disease and diabetes. The paramedics tested her blood-sugar level and found it below 40. For those of you unfamiliar with diabetes, a blood sugar level below 70 is dangerous and could lead to seizure. But once again, Medicare denied payment. Mr. President, I have a stack of actual run tickets from EMS providers in Minnesota, with names and other identifiers deleted, all demonstrating what a problem this is for Medicare beneficiaries and EMS providers. Again, I urge all of my colleagues to meet with their EMS providers and ask how these denials affect them. Title II of the Emergency Medical Services Efficiency Act creates a Federal Commission on Emergency Medical Services which will make recommendations and provide input on how federal regulatory actions affect all types of EMS providers. EMS needs a seat at the table when health care and other regulatory policy is made. Few things are more frustrating for ambulance services than trying to navigate and comply with the tangled mess of laws and regulations from the federal level on down, only to receive either a reimbursement that doesn't cover the costs of providing the service or a flat denial of payment. Mr. President, I came across this chart two years ago which demonstrates how a Medicare claim moves from submittal to payment, denial, or write-off by the ambulance provider. Look at this chart and tell me how a rural ambulance provider who depends on volunteers has the manpower or expertise to navigate this mess. And, in the event it is navigated successfully, ambulance services are regularly reimbursed at a level that doesn't even cover their costs. Mr. President, I have heard complaints from many individuals about the cost of ambulance care. In fact, some within this very body criticize ambulance providers for the high prices they charge for their services. While I do not doubt there are cases of abuse, I know for a fact an overwhelming majority of EMTs, Paramedics, Emergency Nurses and EMS providers are trying to provide the best possible care for their patients at a reasonable price. Let's talk about how much it costs to run just one ambulance. There's the cost of the dispatcher who remains on the line to give pre-arrival assistance. The ambulance itself, which costs from $85,000 to $100,000. The radios, beepers, and cellular telephones used to communicate between the dispatcher, ambulance, and hospital. The supplies and equipment in the ambulance, including everything from defibrillators to bandages. The two Emergency Medical Technicians or Paramedics who both drive the ambulance and provide care to the patient. The vehicle repair, maintenance, and insurance costs. The liability insurance for the paramedics. And the list goes on. Yes, the costs can be high, but it's clear to me that, with the uncertainty ambulance providers face out in the field each day, they need to be prepared for very type of injury or condition. Mr. President, that's expensive. I'm convinced those who complain about the high costs of emergency care would be the first to complain if the ambulance that arrived to care for them in an emergency didn't have the life-saving equipment needed for treatment. Let's be honest with ourselves: we want the quickest and best service when we face an emergency--and that costs money. Mr. President, many of our political debates in Washington center around how to better prepare for the 21st century. I've always supported research and efforts to expand the limits of technology and continue to believe technological innovations and advances in biomedical and basic scientific research hold tremendous promise. Under the new EMSEA, federal grant programs will be clarified to ensure EMS agencies are eligible for programs that relate to highway safety, rural development, and tele-health technology. Emergency Medical Services have come a long way since the first ambulance services began in Cleveland and New York City during the 1860s. Indeed, the scientific and technological advances have created a new practice of medicine in two short decades, and have dramatically improved the prospects of surviving serious trauma. There's reason to believe further advances will have equally meaningful results. Innovations like tele-health technology may soon allow EMTs, nurses, and paramedics to perform more sophisticated procedures under a physician's supervision via real-time, ambulance-mounted monitors and cameras networked to emergency departments in specific service areas. By not considering EMS agencies for federal grant dollars, we may cause significant delays in the application of current technologies. That would be a mistake. In August of 1996, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration and the Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau issued a report, ``Emergency Medical Services: Agenda for the Future.'' The report outlined specific ways EMS can be improved, and one of the stated goals was the authorization of a ``lead federal agency.'' After consultation with those in the EMS field throughout the country, I believe the most appropriate action is to take our time and get it right by conducting a study to determine which current or new office would best coordinate federal EMS efforts. Those are the major provisions of the legislation I introduce today. Mr. President, in 1995, there were approximately 100 million visits to emergency departments across this nation. Roughly 20 percent of those visits started with a call for an ambulance. Each one of those calls is important, especially to those seeking assistance and to the responding EMS personnel. While EMS represents a small portion of health care spending overall, it is critically important. It serves as the access point for the sickest among us and it would be tragic for Congress to deny its role in improving the system. Over the past several years, I've been privileged to get to know the men and women who dedicate their talents to serving others in an emergency. The nation owes a great deal to the EMS personnel who have dedicated themselves to their profession because they care about people and want to help those who are suffering. Nobody gets rich as a professional paramedic, and there's no monetary compensation at all as a volunteer. The field of emergency medical services presents many challenges--but offers the reward of knowing you helped someone in need of assistance. Every year, the American Ambulance Association recognizes EMS personnel across the country for their contributions to the profession, and bestows upon them the Stars of Life Award. This year, 94 individuals have been chosen by their peers to be honored for demonstrating exceptional kindness and selflessness in performing their duties. Mr. President, Minnesota suffered a tremendous loss this year. On January 14, while extricating a victim of an automobile accident, two EMTs were hit by a car. Brenda HagE, an EMT and Registered Nurse, was transported in traumatic arrest to a nearby hospital where she was pronounced dead. Ms. HagE is survived by her husband Darby and two children. I ask that the Senate observe a moment of silence for Ms. HagE and all EMS personnel who have died in the line of duty. Mr. President, I've talked with many professional EMTs, paramedics, and emergency nurses, and most tell me they wouldn't think of doing anything else for their chosen career. Similarly, volunteer EMS personnel tell me of the indescribable satisfaction they feel when they help those in their community get the care they need. So, in honoring them during this National EMS Week, I can think of no better way to recognize their service than through legislation that will help them help others. I ask my colleagues to support them by supporting S. 9-1-1, the ``Emergency Medical Services Act.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of the 1999 American Ambulance Association Stars of Life honorees be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the 1999 Supplemental Appropriations legislation. Let me make a few brief remarks explaining why I will vote against it. I do so reluctantly because some of this funding is necessary, such as the agriculture spending, and some is offset. I co-sponsored and strongly supported the Enzi amendment to fully offset spending in this bill. Since our colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked this effort to be fiscally responsible, thereby giving their support to this spending of Social Security surplus funds, I cannot endorse this irresponsible spending. The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan watchdog of fiscal policy, calls this bill a ``SAYGO'' bill, and SAYGO stands for spend-as-you-go. According to the Concord Coalition, ``Congress is using the emergency spending loophole to create a new budgetary concept--spend as you go (SAYGO). I fully agree with the Concord Coalition. Sadly, the term ``SAYGO'' has captured the essence of this legislation. However, there is nothing new about this practice. Congress has repeatedly used this old trick on the American taxpayers as a way to expand government programs and escape budget disciplines. Let me remind my colleagues about what happened last year. As you recall, Mr. President, despite the rhetoric of President Clinton and Congress to use every penny of the budget surplus to save Social Security, last year, we spent nearly $30 billion of the Social Security surplus for alleged ``emergency spending.'' This was more than one third of the entire Social Security surplus for 1998. In last year's omnibus spending legislation alone, Congress spent $22 billion, and nearly $9.3 billion in regular appropriations was shifted into future budgets, a new smoke-and-mirrors gimmick, since we are now hearing how impossible it will be to live within budget caps for FY 2000. No wonder! In addition, few of these ``emergency spending'' items were true emergencies. Many of these dollars could have been included in the annual appropriations process. Last year's irresponsible spending used up the Social Security surplus we were supposed to save, broke the statutory spending caps we promised to keep, and as a result made the caps even tighter for this year. Clearly, that was a big mistake. That's why many of us believe we should end this practice before it becomes automatic and even more egregious in the future. In fact, that's why we passed this year's Budget Resolution with a new enforcement mechanism which allows any Senator to raise a point of order against non-defense emergency designations in an appropriations conference report. In my judgment, this should include defense as well. Unfortunately, Mr. President, we are repeating the same mistake in the 1999 Supplemental Appropriations bill. It includes $15 billion of spending with an estimate of only $2.5 billion actually outlayed this fiscal year. So it is quite obvious this spending is a way to relieve some of the pressure on the FY 2000 spending caps. If the spending caps need to be lifted, let's vote on that up front, not this way. I would not vote to lift the caps anyway, but it is a more responsible way of handling what some believe is a budget crisis. The legislation was originally intended to provide disaster relief to Central America and was later expanded to cover our military action in Kosovo, which are necessary and important spending. Even the agriculture spending is necessary. But conferees also added significant funding that is not emergency-related and was not requested by the President in the conference report. The conference report for this year's emergency spending bill includes $15 billion with only $1.9 billion offset. This means Congress is spending $13 billion of the Social Security surplus, which is over 10 percent of this year's Social Security surplus. The President requested $5.5 billion for military operations in Kosovo and Southwest Asia. But the conferees have doubled that amount. As a result, American taxpayers now have to pay $10.9 billion additional for defense, much of which should be considered in FY 2000 appropriations and was not an emergency. These add-ons include $1.84 billion for military pay and pension increases and $2.25 billion for spare parts, depot maintenance and readiness training. I believe we must allocate sufficient resources to ensure our national security and I am concerned about readiness. We must provide adequate funding to maintain our military operations and support our troops in Kosovo and elsewhere. However, I don't believe we can use our immediate needs as a vehicle for non-emergency defense spending. General defense readiness needs, such as a military pay raise and a pension benefits increase, is not an emergency and should be handled through the normal budget, authorization and appropriations process. Again, if the spending cap is a problem, we should deal with that problem head on, not by this back-door approach. Further, this conference report is a Christmas tree that's loaded not with ornaments, but with plenty of non-emergency spending items under the guise of an emergency, totaling over $200 million. Even some emergency related funding is far above what is needed and requested. For example, the President requested $370 million funding for FEMA, but the conference report has almost tripled that amount. This is not right. Attached is a copy of Senator McCain's list on the objectionable provisions contained in this conference report. My biggest concern is that we have promised the American people we will save every penny of the Social Security surplus exclusively for Social Security. In the recently-passed budget resolution we included a provision to lock in $1.8 trillion of the Social Security surplus to save and strengthen Social Security. We are continuing to pursue Social Security lockbox legislation to prohibit Washington from continuing to loot the Social Security surplus for unrelated government spending. Now we are backing off from that promise, claiming we will make it up next year. I've heard that before. I believe this will damage our credibility and accountability with the American people, as well as further endanger our already damaged Social Security system. As I mentioned earlier, there are some good provisions I strongly support in this bill. Frankly, some of the provisions and funding will help my own state of Minnesota. But the non-emergency spending which is not offset overshadows these good provisions. I cannot in good conscience vote for this legislation. Finally, the Concord Coalition challenges us, I quote: ``Fiscally responsible Members of both parties should put an end to SAY-GO by rejecting this emergency supplemental.'' They are right. Above all we must maintain the fiscal discipline and responsibility we promised the American people. We must keep our commitment to protect Social Security. I hope my colleagues will reject this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this list of objectionable provisions in H.R. 1141 be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to join many of my colleagues this morning in saying just how grateful I am that I had the chance to work with ``the Admiral.'' When I call Bud Nance ``the Admiral,'' I do so on purpose, because when a Senator referred to ``the Admiral,'' of course you never had to question which one. We all knew that Member was talking about--of course, Admiral Nance. The Admiral was a great man, a true American hero. He survived over 150 Japanese suicide bomber attacks during World War II. He became a Navy test pilot, which was dangerous work. In one of the 10-men units in which he served, five pilots died in crashes. So we know he was not only brave but also blessed. Later he commanded the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Forrestal and served as deputy assistant to the President for national security affairs under Ronald Reagan. Chairman Helms and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee benefited from his intense patriotism and vast experience. We are all very lucky that he was willing to serve his country in this way, continuing his lifelong commitment to the defense of our Nation's interests. Let me say something else about the Admiral. He was a modest man, a very simple man, and he certainly would not want all of this fuss about his accomplishments over a very long life. But Admiral Nance was a Navy man and, of course, loved to tell stories. In his memory, I want to relate an anecdote about the Admiral which reflects his straightforward nature and, above all, his sense of humor. This happened before my time in the Senate, but it is one of those stories that gets repeated by members of the Foreign Relations Committee. I share it with everyone today because if any of you did not have the pleasure of knowing Bud Nance, you will have a better understanding of why he was so beloved by everybody with whom he worked. It occurred in the summer of 1992 when Admiral Nance was the minority staff director of the Foreign Relations Committee and he had requested a document from AID on funds for Nicaragua. The answer the Admiral got from AID was not in English with dollar amounts, but rather it came in Spanish with amounts in cordobas. So the Admiral wrote back to AID saying he had three staff members who were Spanish speakers, but they were all busy, and since English was obviously not AID's official language, he wanted all communication from AID to the committee to be either in Russian or Hebrew during the month of August. But--here is the real kicker--the Admiral sent his response to AID through the proper channels on Foreign Relations Committee stationery, it was all very proper and official looking, except for one thing: He had a member of his staff draft it up in Hebrew. And that is the truth. I have a copy of the letter right here. By the way, the only bit of English was, of course, his signature at the bottom of the letter: ``James W. Nance.'' According to the Admiral, he never heard back from AID on that matter, but he never received another foreign-language document without a translation as well. So again, Mr. President, this is not just a time to mourn our loss, but I believe very strongly it is a time to celebrate the Admiral's life. He will be missed, but he will not be forgotten. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday May 18, 1999. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss noxious weeds and plant pests.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``ESEA: Educating the Forgotten Half'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 18, 1999, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety be granted permission to conduct a hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed sulfur standard for gasoline as contained in the proposed Tier Two standard for automobiles Tuesday, May 18, 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406).

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 18, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. on TV violence and safe harbor legislation.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production, and Regulation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 18, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing, which is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 924, the Federal Royalty Certainty Act.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, May 18, 1999 beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, what business is before the Senate? Are we still in morning business?