Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be permitted to meet on Thursday, April 29, 1999, at 10 a.m. for a hearing on the nominations of Myrta ``Chris'' Sale to be Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management at the Office of Management and Budget and John Spotila to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 29, 1999, at 10 a.m. on NASA FY/2000 Budget.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in order to call attention to one of the most onerous barriers currently facing American agriculture. It is a regional price-fixing cartel, which benefits only those producers within its own boundaries, at the direct expense of consumers. It is a patently unfair, unabashed attempt to distort basic principles of market forces. It is the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, which has been in effect in New England States since July 1997. Today, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and I introduce the Dairy Fairness Act, which would repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. As many southeastern States are passing enabling legislation to lay the groundwork in forming their own compacts, we feel it is necessary to once again review the notorious history of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, and its negative impact on consumers and on all dairy farmers--with the notable exception, of course, of the largest dairy industries within the compact region. The 1996 FAIR Act included significant reforms for diary policy. It set the stage for greater market orientation in dairy, including reform of the archaic Federal milk marketing orders. Yet despite a strong vote by the Senate to strip the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact from its version of the FAIR Act, and the deliberate exclusion of any compact language from the House version of the bill, a Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact provision was slipped into the conference report. This language called for the termination of the compact upon the completion of the Federal milk marketing order process. That would have been in April of 1999. Well, through last year's appropriations process, the implementation of USDA's Federal Milk Marketing Order reforms have been delayed by 6 months. Of course, this was not at the request of the USDA. With the delay came an automatic extension of this compact. This political maneuvering is outrageous, and it comes with a high price tag attached--a high price tag to be paid by milk drinkers, and the rest of the Nation's dairy farmers. The goals of the Northeast Dairy Compact have been clear since its inception. That was--to increase the profits of producers within the compact region, but at the expense of everyone outside of the compact. And by now, the obvious ramifications have been realized--higher milk prices within the compact region. This, not surprisingly, has led to a decrease in milk consumption. According to data from the Northeast Dairy Compact Commission, the compact, since it has been in effect, has added $46.5 million to the cost of milk in New England. As the fluid milk prices which consumers pay rise, the burden falls disproportionately on low-income families, particularly those with small children. Low-income families spend a greater percentage of their income on food. They are harmed as a direct result of this compact. The compact is having other dramatic effects as well. The increase in prices which producers receive for their milk has led to surplus production, which has had a negative effect on other producers around the country. Conversion of this surplus milk into cheese, butter, and powder drives down prices for these products in other non-compact regions. Take milk powder, for instance. Some of the compact's excess supply has been converted into nonfat milk powder. Between October 1997 and March 1998, New England produced 11 million more pounds of powder, 60 percent more than it did in the same period of the preceding year. During that time, nonfat powder production in the U.S. increased by only 2 percent. Furthermore, between October 1, 1997 and March 31, 1998, the nonfat milk powder glut in the U.S. drove prices so low that USDA had to spend nearly $41 million to buy surplus milk powder from dairy processors. Dairy producers outside of the compact region clearly are harmed as a direct result of the compact. In fact, the only real winners have been the largest industrial dairies of the Northeast. It is really no surprise. Just consider it: if the compact pays a premium per hundredweight of milk, and large industrial dairies are able to produce, for example, 15 to 20 times more than the ``typical'' traditional dairy farm that the compact was supposedly going to protect, who do you think the big winners are? It certainly isn't the traditional dairy farm. They are also put at a competitive disadvantage, and thanks again to regional politics. And so are dairies outside the compact region. We must keep sight of the fact that a dairy compact, or any sort of compact for that matter, is essentially a price-fixing scheme, which so abuses interstate commerce that it requires a special authorization of Congress. Otherwise it would violate Federal antitrust laws. We have come to the point where we must ask ourselves, as a nation, in which direction will we proceed concerning dairy policy. USDA has just presented its recommendations for Federal Milk Marketing Order reforms. It is not a great step in the way of reform, but at least it represents a rational attempt to decrease Federal interference in the dairy business and to treat producers all over the country a little more fairly. A national patchwork of compacts would render the Federal Milk Marketing Order reforms meaningless. It would essentially kill any hope for the beginning of real Federal reform. Interstate commerce in the milk industry would be so confusing it would be a confusing maze that harms consumers. While dairy was not included in the farm bill, it was always envisioned that a later dairy solution would conform to the free market concept of that farm bill. We all know that it is difficult in Washington to have the courage to bypass any of those quick-fix issues in favor of a long-range view which would produce better and sound dairy policies. But that is exactly what we need today. That is where real leadership comes into play. So let's be advocates for the traditional dairy farmers, not just the mega-dairies. What is required now is a complete overhaul of this backward-looking and just plain unfair compact legislation. Senator Feingold and I will continue to fight the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, and any other dairy compact that may be proposed. And we urge our colleagues to give all dairy farmers, in all areas of our country, the ability to compete on a level playing field. To this end, and in order to underscore the need for significant reform, Senator Feingold and I today also introduce the Dairy Reform Act, which would equalize the minimum adjustments to prices for fluid milk marketing orders at $1.80 per hundredweight of milk. This legislation, again, represents real reform, and a level playing field that will allow farmers to compete fairly and not have the Federal Government stand on the neck of dairy farmers in one area of the country while supporting those in others. It would allow producers to compete in a system where efficiencies--efficiencies--would be rewarded and they would be important according to market principles. The current system is so weighted against the Upper Midwest that our dairy farmers have to be twice as good just to be able to break even. The Dairy Reform Act proposes a marketing system which would truly be fair.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Department of Energy Abolishment Act of 1999. I am pleased to include as original cosponsors Senator Spencer Abraham and Senator Jon Kyl and want to thank them for their support both this year and in past Congresses. I would also like to say that Congressman Todd Tiahrt will be introducing his DOE elimination bill today in the House of Representatives and I thank him for his continued leadership and cooperation on this issue. As many of my colleagues are aware, the effort to eliminate the DOE is not a new endeavor. In fact, since its inception, experts have been clamoring to eliminate the Department and to move its programs back to the agencies from which they were taken--agencies better suited to achieving specific programmatic goals. When we began to look into the specifics of DOE elimination in the 104th Congress, we considered three main issues. First, we examined the fact that the Department of Energy no longer has a mission--a situation clearly reflected by the fact that nearly 85 percent of its budget is expended upon ``non-energy'' programs. The Department was created to develop a long-term energy strategy with an ultimate goal of energy indepedence. Sadly, we are now far more reliant upon foreign energy sources than we were when the Department was created. During the long oil lines of the 1970s, we were about 35 percent dependent on foreign oil. Today, it is more than 60 percent. So our foreign oil dependency has grown, and a lack of an energy strategy is a result of the failure of the DOE. I recall at one point Secretary Hazel O'Leary commented that we should consider taking the word ``energy'' out of the Department's name because it was such a small portion of its overall activity. Next, we studied those programs charged to the DOE and reviewed its ability to meet the related job requirements. And finally, we looked at the DOE's ever-increasing budget in light of the first two criterion--determining whether the taxpayers should be forced to expend nearly $18 billion annually on this bureacratic hodgepodge. Now, I want to be up front and say for the record that I acknowledge the difficulties inherent in eliminating a cabinet-level agency. I am keenly aware that the chances of passing this bill into law in this Congress, with this Administration, and in a presidential election year are difficult. Those chances may be exactly as they were in 1996 when I first introduced this legislation and when we held our first hearing on the matter, but unfortunately, the reasons for offering the bill haven't changed. In 1996, the opponents of this legislation charged that it was unnecessary. They claimed that the Department was headed in the right direction and making the changes necessary to both justify its mission and reduce its bloated budget. The call of many Members of Congress to eliminate the Department encouraged a group of DOE supporters to back a hastily arranged set of objectives in defense of the DOE's record of mismanagement. At the time of the 1996 hearings on this legislation, the backers of the Department relied largely on the DOE's Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative as a defense against charges that the Department wasted too much money and that the Department was involved in a two- decades old scavenger hunt for new missions. The Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative, its proponents claimed, would save taxpayers over $14 billion in 5 years and change the way the DOE conducted business. Regrettably, those projections were never met and the Initiative was never taken seriously--even by the same people who touted its promise. In fact, while they have continued their reluctance to reduce their budget--they have continuously sought billions of dollars in budget increase to fund their on-going mission creep. So I think its worthwhile to look back on the great hopes those opposed to my bill placed on this proposal. While speaking about this legislation on September 4, 1996, in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Bennett Johnston said, ``Maybe all of this would be worth doing if we were going to save the taxpayers a lot of money. But the operational savings claimed by S. 1678 by the Heritage Foundation are actually less than the operational savings that would be realized by the Department's on-going strategic realignment initiative, savings that the GAO has testified are real.'' In other words, the Senator was saying that the Department of Energy would save more money for the taxpayers by doing a better job than we could by eliminating the department. As I stated earlier, Mr. President, the Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative--the great hope of DOE's defenders in 1996-- hasn't achieved one red cent of budgetary savings over the last 4 years, and it doesn't appear that anything is going to change anytime soon. Regrettably, the Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative isn't the only improvement the Department has failed to make over the past four years. Today, commercial nuclear waste still sits at 73 sites in 34 states despite both legal and contractual obligations that mandated the removal of the waste by January 31, 1998, more than a year ago. Since my election to the Senate in 1994, I have listened to a parade of DOE witnesses tell the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that they are committed to resolving this conflict and living up to their responsibilities. Every nominee I have questioned has told me how important this issue is to them and how they are going to work with Congress. But not one of them--not one--in any substantive way, has taken actions which generate faith in Congress that the DOE is capable of fulfilling its promises. Again--not one--nominee has delivered on their promises--instead, of what they need to say to get confirmed and then return to business as usual. They don't keep their promises. They say what they need to say, what Congress wants to hear to get confirmed, and then they go on with business as usual. Today, the Government Performance and Results Act paints a clear picture of how difficult it is to get a grip on the size of problems at the Department of Energy. The Department's final strategic plan, which took four years of preparation, scored a pathetic 43.5 points out of a possible 100. That is how good this is. And the DOE's FY99 annual performance plan was ranked fourth from last of all government agencies--scoring 30 out of a possible 100. No business, no college student, no family, could consistently perform so miserably and yet maintain a cushy existence of even larger and larger budgets. But thanks to an indifferent Administration, and a Congress that places too little importance on its oversight role, the DOE continues along with the knowledge that its protectors will keep the lights on and the funding flowing without any regard for the American taxpayer. And today, as this nation continues to grow increasingly dependent upon foreign oil--in total contrast to the DOE's core mission. Even in light of this Administration's focus on alternative energy, the DOE expends less than one-sixth of its budget on ``energy'' related programs--a trend that clearly will continue well into the future. Let me be the first to state that the proposals contained within this bill are not all of my own. The idea to eliminate the Department of Energy is not a new one--since its creation in 1978, experts have been clamoring to abolish this ``agency in search of a mission.'' This bill represents the comments and input of many who have worked in these fields for decades, but, I consider it a work in progress. Under the Department of Energy Abolishment Act of 1999, we dismantle the patchwork quilt of government initiatives--reassembling them into agencies better equipped to accomplish their basic goals; we refocus and increase federal funding towards basic research by eliminating corporate welfare; and, we abolish the bloated, duplicative upper management bureaucracy. First, we begin by eliminating Energy's cabinet-level status and establishing a three-year Resolution Agency to oversee the transition. This is critical to ensuring progress continues to be made on the core programs. Under Title I, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is spun off to become an independent agency, as it was prior to the creation of the DOE. The division which oversees hearings and appeals is eliminated, with all pending cases transferred to the Department of Justice for resolution within 1 year. The functions of the Energy Information Administration are transferred to the Department of Interior with the instruction to privatize as many as possible. And with the exception of research being conducted by the DOE labs, basic science and energy research functions are transferred to Interior for determination on which are basic research, and which can be privatized. Those deemed as core research will be transferred to the National Science Foundation and reviewed by an independent commission. Those that are more commercial in nature will be subject to disposition recommendations by the Secretary of Interior. The main reasoning behind this is to ensure the original mission of the DOE--to develop this nation's energy independence--is carried out. With scarce taxpayer dollars currently competing against defense and cleanup programs within the DOE, it's no surprise that little progress has been made. However, by refocusing dollars into competitive alternative energy research, we will maximize the potential for areas such as solar, wind, biomass, etc. For states like Minnesota, where the desire for renewable energy technologies is high, growth in these areas could help fend off our growing dependence upon foreign oil while protecting our environment. Under Title II, the laboratory structure within the DOE is revamped. First, the three ``defense labs'' are transferred to the Defense Department. They include Sandia, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. The remaining labs are studied by a ``Non-defense Energy Laboratory Commission''. This independent commission operates much like the Base Closure Commission and can recommend restructuring, privatization or a transfer to the DOD as alternatives to closure. Congress is granted fast-track authority to adopt the Commission's recommendations. Title III directs the General Accounting Office to assess an inventory of the Power Marketing Administration's assets, liabilities, etc. This inventory is aimed at ensuring fair treatment of current customers and a fair return to the taxpayers. All issues, including payments by current customers, must be included in the GAO audit. Petroleum Reserves are the focus of Title IV. The Naval Petroleum Reserve is targeted for immediate sale. Any of the reserves that are unable to be disposed of within the three-year window will be sold transitionally from the Interior Department. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is transferred to the Defense Department and an audit on value and maintenance costs is conducted by the GAO. Then, the DOD is charged with determining how much oil to maintain for national security purposes after reviewing the GAO report. Under Titles V and VI, all of the national security and environmental restoration/management activities are sent to the Department of Defense. Therefore, all defense-related activities are transferred back to Defense, but are placed in a new civilian controlled agency (the Defense Nuclear Programs Agency) to ensure budget firewalls and civilian control over sensitive activities such as arms control and nonproliferation activities. And the program which has received much criticism as of late, the Civilian Nuclear Waste Program, is transferred to the Corps of Engineers. This section dovetails legislation adopted by the Senate last Congress. A key element is that the interim storage site is designated at Nevada's Test Site Area 25. As I mentioned in the beginning of my statement, while I believe we should eliminate the Department as cabinet-level agency, I appreciate the difficulty involved in accomplishing this goal now and realize the opposition to this among many of my colleagues. For that reason, I believe it is important to point out that the reasons I have outlined for eliminating the Department have a dual purpose--they can also serve as reasons for improving the Department. Toward that end, I am willing to work with any Member of the Senate and House to improve, downsize, or restructure the DOE. I have long advocated positions which are consistent with my beliefs. I am an original co-sponsor of The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999-- legislation I believe is essential to fulfilling the DOE's promises to America's ratepayers and taxpayers. I have been a strong supporter of legislation and efforts which are aimed at improving our nation's energy security by promoting domestically produced alternative and renewable fuels. Those efforts have included support for extending the ethanol tax credit, including biodiesel as an alternative fuel under the Energy Policy Act, cosponsoring the Wind Energy Tax Credit, cosponsoring the Poultry Litter Tax Credit legislation, and cosponsoring legislation to reform the hydropower relicensing process. Briefly, I believe those efforts strengthen the original mission of the Department of Energy. My bottom line is, I want America's taxpayers to be assured they are receiving a proper return on their investment. The taxpayers need to have confidence they are receiving the services they deserve. Unfortunately, the record of the Department of Energy is evidence in part of our reliance upon foreign oil, by the nuclear waste program debacle and by the low ratings it receives under the Government Performance and Results Act, and is a record of failure the taxpayers should no longer be forced to bear. I patiently awaited the reforms and savings promised by the Department and its advocates, but the waiting continues and the savings never developed. As long as this is the case, I will continue to offer my legislation to dismantle the Department of Energy and shift its responsibilities elsewhere. I send the bill to the desk and ask it be referred to the proper committees.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Department of Energy Abolishment Act of 1999. I am pleased to include as original cosponsors Senator Spencer Abraham and Senator Jon Kyl and want to thank them for their support both this year and in past Congresses. I would also like to say that Congressman Todd Tiahrt will be introducing his DOE elimination bill today in the House of Representatives and I thank him for his continued leadership and cooperation on this issue. As many of my colleagues are aware, the effort to eliminate the DOE is not a new endeavor. In fact, since its inception, experts have been clamoring to eliminate the Department and to move its programs back to the agencies from which they were taken--agencies better suited to achieving specific programmatic goals. When we began to look into the specifics of DOE elimination in the 104th Congress, we considered three main issues. First, we examined the fact that the Department of Energy no longer has a mission--a situation clearly reflected by the fact that nearly 85 percent of its budget is expended upon ``non-energy'' programs. The Department was created to develop a long-term energy strategy with an ultimate goal of energy indepedence. Sadly, we are now far more reliant upon foreign energy sources than we were when the Department was created. During the long oil lines of the 1970s, we were about 35 percent dependent on foreign oil. Today, it is more than 60 percent. So our foreign oil dependency has grown, and a lack of an energy strategy is a result of the failure of the DOE. I recall at one point Secretary Hazel O'Leary commented that we should consider taking the word ``energy'' out of the Department's name because it was such a small portion of its overall activity. Next, we studied those programs charged to the DOE and reviewed its ability to meet the related job requirements. And finally, we looked at the DOE's ever-increasing budget in light of the first two criterion--determining whether the taxpayers should be forced to expend nearly $18 billion annually on this bureacratic hodgepodge. Now, I want to be up front and say for the record that I acknowledge the difficulties inherent in eliminating a cabinet-level agency. I am keenly aware that the chances of passing this bill into law in this Congress, with this Administration, and in a presidential election year are difficult. Those chances may be exactly as they were in 1996 when I first introduced this legislation and when we held our first hearing on the matter, but unfortunately, the reasons for offering the bill haven't changed. In 1996, the opponents of this legislation charged that it was unnecessary. They claimed that the Department was headed in the right direction and making the changes necessary to both justify its mission and reduce its bloated budget. The call of many Members of Congress to eliminate the Department encouraged a group of DOE supporters to back a hastily arranged set of objectives in defense of the DOE's record of mismanagement. At the time of the 1996 hearings on this legislation, the backers of the Department relied largely on the DOE's Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative as a defense against charges that the Department wasted too much money and that the Department was involved in a two- decades old scavenger hunt for new missions. The Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative, its proponents claimed, would save taxpayers over $14 billion in 5 years and change the way the DOE conducted business. Regrettably, those projections were never met and the Initiative was never taken seriously--even by the same people who touted its promise. In fact, while they have continued their reluctance to reduce their budget--they have continuously sought billions of dollars in budget increase to fund their on-going mission creep. So I think its worthwhile to look back on the great hopes those opposed to my bill placed on this proposal. While speaking about this legislation on September 4, 1996, in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Bennett Johnston said, ``Maybe all of this would be worth doing if we were going to save the taxpayers a lot of money. But the operational savings claimed by S. 1678 by the Heritage Foundation are actually less than the operational savings that would be realized by the Department's on-going strategic realignment initiative, savings that the GAO has testified are real.'' In other words, the Senator was saying that the Department of Energy would save more money for the taxpayers by doing a better job than we could by eliminating the department. As I stated earlier, Mr. President, the Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative--the great hope of DOE's defenders in 1996-- hasn't achieved one red cent of budgetary savings over the last 4 years, and it doesn't appear that anything is going to change anytime soon. Regrettably, the Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative isn't the only improvement the Department has failed to make over the past four years. Today, commercial nuclear waste still sits at 73 sites in 34 states despite both legal and contractual obligations that mandated the removal of the waste by January 31, 1998, more than a year ago. Since my election to the Senate in 1994, I have listened to a parade of DOE witnesses tell the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that they are committed to resolving this conflict and living up to their responsibilities. Every nominee I have questioned has told me how important this issue is to them and how they are going to work with Congress. But not one of them--not one--in any substantive way, has taken actions which generate faith in Congress that the DOE is capable of fulfilling its promises. Again--not one--nominee has delivered on their promises--instead, of what they need to say to get confirmed and then return to business as usual. They don't keep their promises. They say what they need to say, what Congress wants to hear to get confirmed, and then they go on with business as usual. Today, the Government Performance and Results Act paints a clear picture of how difficult it is to get a grip on the size of problems at the Department of Energy. The Department's final strategic plan, which took four years of preparation, scored a pathetic 43.5 points out of a possible 100. That is how good this is. And the DOE's FY99 annual performance plan was ranked fourth from last of all government agencies--scoring 30 out of a possible 100. No business, no college student, no family, could consistently perform so miserably and yet maintain a cushy existence of even larger and larger budgets. But thanks to an indifferent Administration, and a Congress that places too little importance on its oversight role, the DOE continues along with the knowledge that its protectors will keep the lights on and the funding flowing without any regard for the American taxpayer. And today, as this nation continues to grow increasingly dependent upon foreign oil--in total contrast to the DOE's core mission. Even in light of this Administration's focus on alternative energy, the DOE expends less than one-sixth of its budget on ``energy'' related programs--a trend that clearly will continue well into the future. Let me be the first to state that the proposals contained within this bill are not all of my own. The idea to eliminate the Department of Energy is not a new one--since its creation in 1978, experts have been clamoring to abolish this ``agency in search of a mission.'' This bill represents the comments and input of many who have worked in these fields for decades, but, I consider it a work in progress. Under the Department of Energy Abolishment Act of 1999, we dismantle the patchwork quilt of government initiatives--reassembling them into agencies better equipped to accomplish their basic goals; we refocus and increase federal funding towards basic research by eliminating corporate welfare; and, we abolish the bloated, duplicative upper management bureaucracy. First, we begin by eliminating Energy's cabinet-level status and establishing a three-year Resolution Agency to oversee the transition. This is critical to ensuring progress continues to be made on the core programs. Under Title I, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is spun off to become an independent agency, as it was prior to the creation of the DOE. The division which oversees hearings and appeals is eliminated, with all pending cases transferred to the Department of Justice for resolution within 1 year. The functions of the Energy Information Administration are transferred to the Department of Interior with the instruction to privatize as many as possible. And with the exception of research being conducted by the DOE labs, basic science and energy research functions are transferred to Interior for determination on which are basic research, and which can be privatized. Those deemed as core research will be transferred to the National Science Foundation and reviewed by an independent commission. Those that are more commercial in nature will be subject to disposition recommendations by the Secretary of Interior. The main reasoning behind this is to ensure the original mission of the DOE--to develop this nation's energy independence--is carried out. With scarce taxpayer dollars currently competing against defense and cleanup programs within the DOE, it's no surprise that little progress has been made. However, by refocusing dollars into competitive alternative energy research, we will maximize the potential for areas such as solar, wind, biomass, etc. For states like Minnesota, where the desire for renewable energy technologies is high, growth in these areas could help fend off our growing dependence upon foreign oil while protecting our environment. Under Title II, the laboratory structure within the DOE is revamped. First, the three ``defense labs'' are transferred to the Defense Department. They include Sandia, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. The remaining labs are studied by a ``Non-defense Energy Laboratory Commission''. This independent commission operates much like the Base Closure Commission and can recommend restructuring, privatization or a transfer to the DOD as alternatives to closure. Congress is granted fast-track authority to adopt the Commission's recommendations. Title III directs the General Accounting Office to assess an inventory of the Power Marketing Administration's assets, liabilities, etc. This inventory is aimed at ensuring fair treatment of current customers and a fair return to the taxpayers. All issues, including payments by current customers, must be included in the GAO audit. Petroleum Reserves are the focus of Title IV. The Naval Petroleum Reserve is targeted for immediate sale. Any of the reserves that are unable to be disposed of within the three-year window will be sold transitionally from the Interior Department. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is transferred to the Defense Department and an audit on value and maintenance costs is conducted by the GAO. Then, the DOD is charged with determining how much oil to maintain for national security purposes after reviewing the GAO report. Under Titles V and VI, all of the national security and environmental restoration/management activities are sent to the Department of Defense. Therefore, all defense-related activities are transferred back to Defense, but are placed in a new civilian controlled agency (the Defense Nuclear Programs Agency) to ensure budget firewalls and civilian control over sensitive activities such as arms control and nonproliferation activities. And the program which has received much criticism as of late, the Civilian Nuclear Waste Program, is transferred to the Corps of Engineers. This section dovetails legislation adopted by the Senate last Congress. A key element is that the interim storage site is designated at Nevada's Test Site Area 25. As I mentioned in the beginning of my statement, while I believe we should eliminate the Department as cabinet-level agency, I appreciate the difficulty involved in accomplishing this goal now and realize the opposition to this among many of my colleagues. For that reason, I believe it is important to point out that the reasons I have outlined for eliminating the Department have a dual purpose--they can also serve as reasons for improving the Department. Toward that end, I am willing to work with any Member of the Senate and House to improve, downsize, or restructure the DOE. I have long advocated positions which are consistent with my beliefs. I am an original co-sponsor of The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999-- legislation I believe is essential to fulfilling the DOE's promises to America's ratepayers and taxpayers. I have been a strong supporter of legislation and efforts which are aimed at improving our nation's energy security by promoting domestically produced alternative and renewable fuels. Those efforts have included support for extending the ethanol tax credit, including biodiesel as an alternative fuel under the Energy Policy Act, cosponsoring the Wind Energy Tax Credit, cosponsoring the Poultry Litter Tax Credit legislation, and cosponsoring legislation to reform the hydropower relicensing process. Briefly, I believe those efforts strengthen the original mission of the Department of Energy. My bottom line is, I want America's taxpayers to be assured they are receiving a proper return on their investment. The taxpayers need to have confidence they are receiving the services they deserve. Unfortunately, the record of the Department of Energy is evidence in part of our reliance upon foreign oil, by the nuclear waste program debacle and by the low ratings it receives under the Government Performance and Results Act, and is a record of failure the taxpayers should no longer be forced to bear. I patiently awaited the reforms and savings promised by the Department and its advocates, but the waiting continues and the savings never developed. As long as this is the case, I will continue to offer my legislation to dismantle the Department of Energy and shift its responsibilities elsewhere. I send the bill to the desk and ask it be referred to the proper committees.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the efforts of Senator Murkowski and Senator Hagel by cosponsoring the Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999. This legislation marks a turning point in how we address the potential problems associated with global climate change. It addresses these potential problems not by mandating draconian reductions in energy use and hiking energy taxes, but by providing America's businesses and innovators with the tools they need to make long-term, substantive carbon dioxide emissions reductions. One of the problems with the administration's support of the Kyoto Protocol is that while they have already agreed to legally-binding greenhouse gas emissions reductions, the GAO found last year that the administration does not have quantitative performance goals for the money they intend to spend on their intiatives. In other words, the administration has agreed to a treaty with legally-binding reductions and they clearly want to spend a lot of money to reach those limits--but they don't have any idea how much of an impact all of their spending will have on emissions reductions. This legislation says ``let's take a different road.'' The Murkowski- Hagel bill will establish a new research, development and demonstration program that promotes technologies and practices which allow energy users to avoid or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Those technologies include alternative energy technologies, energy efficiency technologies, and technologies that take current energy production processes and make them better and more efficient. The bill will also promote technologies that remove and sequester greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and emissions streams. This bill is aimed at involving the private sector in our decisionmaking processes and bringing them to the table as well. It is aimed at putting American ingenuity to work whether it be in the home, at the business, or out on the farm. The Murkowski-Hagel bill simply says that we recognize our responsibility to reduce or sequester greenhouse gas emissions and we are taking substantive, long-term steps to that rising challenge. The Murkowski-Hagel bill does not start from the premise that we are to blame for the theoretical impacts of global warming. It doesn't attempt to punish American businesses by forcing them to reduce their energy consumption or by bankrupting them through higher energy prices. This bill does not accept the long-held beltway view that Washington knows best. It recognizes that American businesses and individuals can do tremendous things when they are challenged to do better and when Government is their partner rather than their adversary. I sincerely hope that all Members of the Senate can support this piece of legislation so that it can pass into law as soon as possible. I look forward to continuing to work with Senators Murkowski and Hagel and others interested to continue our efforts to both protect the environment and strengthen the American economy as we enter into the 21st century. While I am here this morning, I would like to renew my request to President Clinton that he submit the recently signed Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification. Mr. President, the United States Senate has clearly expressed its interest in this matter and its opposition to any attempts to implement the Treaty prior to Senate advice and consent. In the 105th Congress, the Senate undertook a number of activities which illustrated these concerns. First, S. Res. 98 unanimously expressed the Senate's position on both the projected economic impacts of the Treaty and the participation of developing nations. Second, in a series of measures, including the FY99 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, the FY99 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act, and the FY99 VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, the Senate expressed its concern with any attempts at premature implementation and Administration actions which advance the provisions of the Treaty prior to Senate advice and consent. It is my understanding that the Administration has largely ignored the provisions of those pieces of legislation. While President Clinton has long maintained that he will not submit the Treaty to the Senate prior to obtaining ``meaningful'' developing nation participation, his recent actions clearly demonstrate that he will not withdraw U.S. support, regardless of what the final agreement may be. By signing the Treaty on November 12, 1998, while allowing an additional two years for continued negotiations on elements critical to the Treaty's impact on our nation, he has predetermined the outcome and weakened our nation's negotiating position. And despite the Senate's unanimous framework provided within S. Res. 98, there has been little substantive progress towards obtaining any ``meaningful'' participation among developing nations. I can only conclude that the Administration's premature signing of this Treaty was based on political considerations that should never have been factored into such an important decision. Under no circumstances should a Treaty be signed until we agree with its principals. Just briefly, as I conclude, once a Treaty has been signed by the United States, it should immediately be sent to the Congress for ratification, not used for political purposes. So again, I strongly urge the President to submit the Kyoto Protocol, which he has already signed, to the Senate for ratification. If he believes it is important enough to sign and to implement through backdoor tactics, then he should also believe it is important enough to for Congress, the people's voice, to have an opportunity to review it, debate it, and vote on its ratification. I believe the Senate must have the opportunity to examine the Treaty now and debate it openly before the American people.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the efforts of Senator Murkowski and Senator Hagel by cosponsoring the Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999. This legislation marks a turning point in how we address the potential problems associated with global climate change. It addresses these potential problems not by mandating draconian reductions in energy use and hiking energy taxes, but by providing America's businesses and innovators with the tools they need to make long-term, substantive carbon dioxide emissions reductions. One of the problems with the administration's support of the Kyoto Protocol is that while they have already agreed to legally-binding greenhouse gas emissions reductions, the GAO found last year that the administration does not have quantitative performance goals for the money they intend to spend on their intiatives. In other words, the administration has agreed to a treaty with legally-binding reductions and they clearly want to spend a lot of money to reach those limits--but they don't have any idea how much of an impact all of their spending will have on emissions reductions. This legislation says ``let's take a different road.'' The Murkowski- Hagel bill will establish a new research, development and demonstration program that promotes technologies and practices which allow energy users to avoid or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Those technologies include alternative energy technologies, energy efficiency technologies, and technologies that take current energy production processes and make them better and more efficient. The bill will also promote technologies that remove and sequester greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and emissions streams. This bill is aimed at involving the private sector in our decisionmaking processes and bringing them to the table as well. It is aimed at putting American ingenuity to work whether it be in the home, at the business, or out on the farm. The Murkowski-Hagel bill simply says that we recognize our responsibility to reduce or sequester greenhouse gas emissions and we are taking substantive, long-term steps to that rising challenge. The Murkowski-Hagel bill does not start from the premise that we are to blame for the theoretical impacts of global warming. It doesn't attempt to punish American businesses by forcing them to reduce their energy consumption or by bankrupting them through higher energy prices. This bill does not accept the long-held beltway view that Washington knows best. It recognizes that American businesses and individuals can do tremendous things when they are challenged to do better and when Government is their partner rather than their adversary. I sincerely hope that all Members of the Senate can support this piece of legislation so that it can pass into law as soon as possible. I look forward to continuing to work with Senators Murkowski and Hagel and others interested to continue our efforts to both protect the environment and strengthen the American economy as we enter into the 21st century. While I am here this morning, I would like to renew my request to President Clinton that he submit the recently signed Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification. Mr. President, the United States Senate has clearly expressed its interest in this matter and its opposition to any attempts to implement the Treaty prior to Senate advice and consent. In the 105th Congress, the Senate undertook a number of activities which illustrated these concerns. First, S. Res. 98 unanimously expressed the Senate's position on both the projected economic impacts of the Treaty and the participation of developing nations. Second, in a series of measures, including the FY99 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, the FY99 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act, and the FY99 VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, the Senate expressed its concern with any attempts at premature implementation and Administration actions which advance the provisions of the Treaty prior to Senate advice and consent. It is my understanding that the Administration has largely ignored the provisions of those pieces of legislation. While President Clinton has long maintained that he will not submit the Treaty to the Senate prior to obtaining ``meaningful'' developing nation participation, his recent actions clearly demonstrate that he will not withdraw U.S. support, regardless of what the final agreement may be. By signing the Treaty on November 12, 1998, while allowing an additional two years for continued negotiations on elements critical to the Treaty's impact on our nation, he has predetermined the outcome and weakened our nation's negotiating position. And despite the Senate's unanimous framework provided within S. Res. 98, there has been little substantive progress towards obtaining any ``meaningful'' participation among developing nations. I can only conclude that the Administration's premature signing of this Treaty was based on political considerations that should never have been factored into such an important decision. Under no circumstances should a Treaty be signed until we agree with its principals. Just briefly, as I conclude, once a Treaty has been signed by the United States, it should immediately be sent to the Congress for ratification, not used for political purposes. So again, I strongly urge the President to submit the Kyoto Protocol, which he has already signed, to the Senate for ratification. If he believes it is important enough to sign and to implement through backdoor tactics, then he should also believe it is important enough to for Congress, the people's voice, to have an opportunity to review it, debate it, and vote on its ratification. I believe the Senate must have the opportunity to examine the Treaty now and debate it openly before the American people.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I wanted to be here this morning to strongly support safe deposit box legislation that would lock in any future Social Security surpluses, again only to be used for Social Security. That doesn't sound like rhetoric to me, although that is what others are charging. But this is an effort to make sure the surpluses for Social Security go forward to making sure that Social Security is going to be solvent in the future. I commend the Senate majority leader and Senator Domenici for making this legislation a top priority. I am pleased to join Senators Abraham, Ashcroft, and Domenici to offer this important substitute amendment. The recently released 1999 Social Security Trustee's Report shows the financial status of the Social Security Trust Funds has slightly improved due to our strong economy. The Trustee's report that Social Security will begin operating in the red in 2014, a year longer than last year's report, and it will go broke in 2034, two years later than projected last year. This does not mean we don't need to worry about Social Security any more, and that future economic growth will wipe out all of our problems with Social Security as some suggest. On the contrary, it reveals that Social Security unfunded liability has increased by $752 billion, which means Social Security is falling deeper into debt. It makes reform of Social Security more urgent than ever. Although the increased surplus has slightly pushed back the date of insolvency, the significant increase of unfunded liability makes it harder to fix Social Security. Clearly, nearly $20 trillion in unfunded liability makes Social Security reform more imperative, not less--$20 trillion in unfunded liability. That means $20 trillion worth of benefits that the Government has promised that is not available in the Social Security Trust Funds. That's why we are introducing this legislation today as an essential first step to save and strengthen Social Security. Mr. President, this legislation is an enforceable mechanism to preserve the surplus generated by Social Security. It is designed to lock in every penny of the $1.8 trillion Social Security surplus in the next 10 years to be exclusively used for Social Security. Pending reforms, these surpluses would retire debt held by the public to increase cash reserves in the Social Security trust funds. This mechanism ensures the surplus will be used in the future to pay for promised Social Security benefits once retired baby boomers threaten the solvency of the trust funds. Although I prefer an immediate reform to move Social Security to a fully-funded retirement system, I believe this is the only way to actually save Social Security at this time, and to provide the dollars needed of any reform package in the offing. President Clinton unveiled his Social Security proposal under his FY 2000 budget. The bottom line of his plan is that it allows the Government to control the retirement dollars of the American people by investing for them. It does nothing, however, to save Social Security from bankruptcy. Worse still, despite his rhetoric about saving every penny for Social Security, President Clinton has proposed to take $158 billion in Social Security dollars to finance Government programs unrelated to Social Security. The only positive aspect of his proposal is that the President has admitted the insolvency of Social Security and has recognized the power of the markets to generate a better rate of return, and therefore improved benefits. The fundamental problem with our Social Security system is that it's basically a Ponzi scheme--a pay-as-you-go pyramid that takes the retirement dollars of today's workers to pay benefits for today's retirees. It has no real assets and makes no real investment. With changing demographics that translate into fewer and fewer workers supporting each retiree, the system has begun to collapse. There is a lot of double-counting and double talk in President Clinton's Social Security framework. The truth of the matter is the President spends the same money twice and claims that he has saved Social Security. All the President has done is create a second set of the IOUs in the trust fund. It is like taking the money he owes Paul out of one pocket and applying it to the money he owes Peter in the other pocket, and then pretending that he has doubled his money and is now able to pay them both. In addition, the President has proposed to spend $58 billion of Social Security money in FY 2000 for new Government spending. Over the next five years, he will spend $158 billion of our Social Security money. President Clinton's plan does not live up to his claim of saving Social Security. He has not pushed back the date when the Social Security Trust Fund will begin real deficit spending. That date is still the same--2014. Social Security will have a shortfall that year and the shortfall will continue to grow larger year after year. There are no longer surpluses building up in the Social Security account. There will actually be a deficit, and the shortfall will be $200 billion a year by the year 2021. By the year 2048, that deficit would run $1.5 trillion a year. Since the government has spent the surplus and has not set aside money to make up for this shortfall, it will have to raise taxes to cover the gap--something that economists estimate will require a doubling of the payroll tax. The proposal by the President to have the government invest a portion of the Social Security Trust Funds is no solution. It would give the government unwarranted new powers over our economy, and it will not provide retirees the rate of return they deserve. Mr. President, it's going to take real reform, not Washington schemes, to help provide security in retirement for all Americans. The first essential step is to stop raiding from the Social Security Trust Funds, and truly preserve and protect the Social Security surplus to be used exclusively for Social Security. This is exactly what this safe-deposit box legislation will achieve. Mr. President, the best part of this legislation is that it will prevent Congress and the Administration from spending the Social Security surplus. As I mentioned earlier, Social Security operates on a cash-in and cash-out basis. In 1998, American workers paid $489 billion into the system, but most of the money, $382 billion, was immediately paid out to 44 million beneficiaries the same year. That left a $106 billion surplus. The total accumulated surplus in the trust fund is $763 billion. Unfortunately, this surplus exists only on paper. The government has consumed all the $763 billion for non-Social Security related programs. All it has are the Treasury IOUs that ``fit in four ordinary brown accordian-style folders that one can easily hold in both hands.'' Despite the President's rhetoric of using every penny of Social Security surplus to save Social Security, last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill alone spent over $21 billion of the Social Security surplus. Without the enforceable lockbox created by this legislation, future surpluses are likely to be spent to fund other government programs, leaving nothing for baby boomers and future generations. Another important component is that this legislation would use the Social Security surplus to reduce the amount of federal debt held by the public. Clearly, there is a valid economic reason to pay down the federal debt. Although I join most economists who agree that paying off the federal debt with a budget surplus would not stimulate growth in the same way that a tax cut would, it is still far preferable to having the government spend all the surplus. Mr. President, many of us in Congress agree with the President that we should, and indeed must, devote the entire Social Security surplus to saving Social Security. However, his plan does not do what he says while our legislation does. Mr. President, this legislation will be an essential first step to save and strengthen Social Security. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to change the previous order and that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business following Senator Durbin.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 82, submitted earlier today by Senator Thurmond.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today across our country, Americans are commemorating Earth Day, a day vitally important to all who serve in this Chamber as well. As my colleagues know, Earth Day was first observed on April 22, 1970. Its purpose was, and it remains, to make people across the country and around the world reflect on the splendor of our planet, an opportunity to get the people to think about the Earth's many gifts we often take for granted. Earth Day is a day for us to renew our commitment to protect our environment and recognize the respect we must give our natural resources, recycling and replenishing whenever possible. The New York Times, on the original Earth Day, ran a story which in part read: Conservatives were for it. Liberals were for it. Democrats, Republicans and Independents were for it. So were the ins, the outs, the executive and the legislative branches of Government. Mr. President, the goals of Earth Day 1970 were goals upon which all of us agree. They are goals still shared across the country, regardless of age, gender, race, economic status, or religious background, and they are shared by this Senator as well. I consider myself a conservationist and an environmentalist, and I think everyone who serves in the Senate also does. No one among us is willing to accept the proposition that our children or grandchildren will ever have to endure dirty water or filthy skies. Our children deserve to live in a world that affords them the same environmental opportunities that their parents enjoy today. When speaking about the Earth and our environment, however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to highlight the consensus that exists in Congress on protecting the environment, because the environmental debate is now so focused on the margins. The proliferation of special interest groups has forced our debate away from our common concerns and left the American people with the idea that an individual is either for the environment or against it, and that determination is made not by the voters or by one's record, but by the scorecard or the rhetoric of a particular organization. I would like to take a moment this Earth Day to remind my constituents and the American people of the tremendous progress we have made on a bipartisan basis towards protecting the Earth and its inhabitants and, at the same time, improving and conserving our precious natural resources. In the 104th Congress, we passed several major pieces of legislation to improve the environment. They include the Safe Drinking Water Act, the conservation title to the farm bill, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Invasive Species Act, the Everglades Protection Amendments, the Food Quality Protection Act, the Water Resources Development Act, the Battery Recycling Act, and the Parks and Public Lands Management Act, just to name a few. Those public laws are now at work helping Americans protect the environment by including billions of dollars to improve the safety of our Nation's drinking water and billions more on conservation efforts on more than 37 million acres of sensitive land. Those programs will help improve our cities' waterfronts, control invasive species in our lakes, and increase visitor enjoyment and natural resource protection in our Nation's parks and in our visitors' enjoyment. Unfortunately, if a Member's constituents did not take the time to review the complete record of their Member of Congress, they would not know the truth. While the accomplishments of the 104th Congress are impressive, the 105th Congress did not rest on its laurels over the past 2 years. The environmental accomplishments of the 105th Congress include the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, the Dolphin Conservation Act, the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, the National Park System Restoration Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteers and Community Partnership Act, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, the African and Asian Elephant Conservation Acts, and a host of programs contained within the provisions of the appropriations legislation. Again, these programs will provide even more money, billions of dollars across the spectrum of environmental protection. These programs were passed only through bipartisan cooperation and were largely supported by most Members of Congress. In the 106th Congress, we are off to another good start. I have focused my efforts on looking at legislation which improves our Nation's energy efficiency and security and promotes the use of alternative renewable sources of energy. I am a cosponsor of legislation to extend the wind energy tax credit and to provide a tax credit for the production of energy from poultry litter. I have also cosponsored legislation with Senators Coverdell, Breaux, and DeWine which would force Federal facilities to comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, something they are currently able to avoid by claiming sovereign immunity. I will soon be joining Senators Murkowski and Hagel as an original cosponsor of the Energy and Climate Policy Act which, through tax credits and public-private partnerships, will promote research and development of technologies which reduce or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. We have had tremendous accomplishments in Congress over the past 4 years, and I make this point not to illustrate a difference between Republican and Democratic Congresses, but to highlight our shared commitments to protecting the environment, improving our wildlife habitats, making our water supply safer, increasing visitor enjoyment in our Nation's parks, and also strengthening our dedication to leaving a proud legacy of natural resource protection for our children and grandchildren to enjoy. Mr. President, I make these points because they are often not properly presented to the American public, because many proenvironmental initiatives are passed by unanimous consent or by voice vote. They often do not appear on our voting records. Instead, Americans are left with the five or six votes over an entire year that a special interest group portrays as the complete environmental record of Members of Congress. Anyone who closely monitors Congress knows that these issues are not as simple as some make them out to be, and a Member's record is not accurately reflected by five or six selective votes, votes which are many times procedural votes and not votes on final passage. That is why I have long believed we can do a better job of promoting our shared commitment to both environmental protection and economic growth by highlighting our many common beliefs, rather than taking a microscope to those beliefs upon which differences arise. Clearly, partisanship will always be present in congressional debates, but no American is well served when issues as important as environmental protection are dominated by the flagrant distortion of the truth. Mr. President, I suggest that on this Earth Day, we pledge to come together to improve our environment and strengthen our natural resources. I suggest that we recognize both our failures and also our successes of the past. We must recognize that today compliance with regulations is the rule and that blatant attempts to pollute and circumvent regulations are the exception. With this in mind, I believe we must renew our Nation's commitment to pragmatism. Government on all levels must do its part as watchdog while empowering those being regulated to develop unique and innovative means of compliance. At the same time, we must promote ideas that create public-private partnerships and encourage companies and individuals to take voluntary steps to protect our natural resources. Through education and awareness, we will be able to approach environmental issues in a way that fosters compromise and in a way that ensures public policy is pursued in the best interest of all. It is time we commit ourselves to achieving real results through environmental initiatives. We must make sure that Superfund dollars go to clean up the Superfund sites, not go into the pockets of lawyers. We must base our decisions on clear science with stated goals and flexible solutions. We must give our job creators more flexibility in meeting national standards as a means of eliminating the pervasive ``command and control'' approach that has infected so many of our Federal programs. And finally, the Federal Government needs to promote a better partnership between all levels of Government, with job providers, environmental interest groups, and with the taxpayers. Moving forward together in eliminating the inflammatory rhetoric which sometimes consumes the entire environmental debate will not be easy, but if we are going to work together to ensure the splendor of our natural resources far into the future, I believe it is a step that we are going to have to take. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I understand that there is no further business to come before the Senate, so I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to again express my strong support for the education proposals currently before the Senate, which would direct more dollars and decision-making authority to states, teachers, and parents. Today the Senate considers an important bill designed to facilitate education administration and free more resources for our students. The ``Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999'' would extend the ``Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Program,'' otherwise known as ``Ed-Flex.'' Ed-Flex allows eligible local school districts to forgo federal red tape that consumes precious education resources. In return, states must have sufficient accountability measures in place and continue to make progress toward improving student education. States must also comply with certain core federal principles, such as civil rights. The concept of Ed-Flex is simple, yet the benefits would be significant. In other words, let's put more money into educating our kids in the classroom rather than lining the pockets of bureaucrats. The Ed-Flex demonstration program is currently in place in 12 states. The ``Ed-Flex Act of 1999'' would allow all 50 states the option to participate in the program. With good reason, the program has been very popular. Unnecessary, time-and-money-consuming federal regulations are rightly despised by school administrators. Did you know that the federal government provides only seven percent of local school funding, but requires 50 percent of all school paperwork? That's ridiculous. We need to put education dollars into the classroom instead of bureaucracy. Ed-Flex takes a critical step in allowing more localized decision- making authority--the power to decide when the federal regulations are more troublesome and expensive than they're worth. Today, there are simply too many regulations which are despised by school administrators. Giving more decision-making authority to states and local school districts is good common sense. Naturally, those who are closest to our students are in the best position to make the most appropriate and effective decisions concerning their education. One-size-fits-all legislation may work well in other areas, but not in education. Some of the most successful classrooms across our nation vary tremendously in their structure, functioning, and appearance. In my home state of Minnesota, for instance, we have very rural communities, urban communities, and everything in between. We've got farm kids, suburban kids, and city kids. All of these kids are students. And I know this sort of rural-to-urban community-mix is typical for most states. How much sense does it make then, to require local school districts and classrooms--all with their own particular strengths and weaknesses--to follow, in lock-step, the homogenized, uniform routine of federal bureaucracy? Not much. This week in Minnesota, the focus in the State Legislature is on education, and those involved in the debate over spending priorities and education initiatives will be Minnesota state officials, teachers, and parents: people much better suited to be making decisions for our students than Washington bureaucrats. We have opportunities before us to do something meaningful for our children's education. A complementary bill to Ed-Flex which promotes local decision-making power is Senator Hutchinson's Dollars to the Classroom Act. Under this proposal, many federally funded K-12 programs would be consolidated and the dollars sent directly to states or local school districts--free from the usual Washington red tape. The bill would require that at least 95 cents out of every dollar spent on 31 primary and secondary federal education programs go to the classroom, allowing teachers and parents to support local education priorities. It would take money from competitive federal grant programs, which rarely reach the local classrooms that need them, and send this money directly to local schools and districts for their spending needs. Mr. President, in a more general sense, we need to address the reasons why our students aren't achieving the levels of academic excellence they should. Of course we all want the best education available for our children, and to improve the state of American education and schools for all children. It's in the best interest of our kids and of our country. It would be nice to think that we could solve the problems of education by spending more and more money. Unfortunately, that doesn't work. The United States is the world leader in national spending per student. Yet our test scores show that our system is failing our children. Test results released last year show that American high school seniors score far below their peers from other countries in math and science. We're at rock bottom. It's going to take more time and effort to solve these problems--and the most important work will be done by those in the best position to do so: parents, teachers, and local administrators. We must give them the freedom they need to accomplish the job. This freedom comes with the authority to make decisions based on a variety of specific needs. I will continue to support measures like the Ed-Flex legislation and the Dollars to the Classroom Act, that return money and control--from Washington--to parents, teachers, and local school districts. After all, they know best how to spend education dollars.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Less than 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this morning to support the budget conference report. Before I speak on the report, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Senate Majority Leader and Chairman Domenici for their outstanding leadership in crafting and delivering this well-balanced budget proposal. I believe this budget blueprint is a great achievement of this Congress, and it will ensure our continued economic growth and prosperity in the new millennium. Protecting Social Security, reducing the national debt and reducing taxes are imperative for our economic security and growth. Our strong economy has offered us a historic opportunity to achieve this three- pronged goal. This budget conference report has showed us how we can provide major tax relief while preserving Social Security and dramatically reducing the national debt, as well as providing sufficient funding for all necessary Government functions. President Clinton has proposed to spend over $158 billion of the Social Security surplus in his budget over the next five years for unrelated Government programs, instead of protecting Social Security. Remember the phrase, ``Save Social Security first''? That is not in the President's budget. This budget conference report includes a safe-deposit box to lock in every penny of the $1.8 trillion Social Security surplus earned in the next 10 years to be used exclusively for Social Security. Stopping the Government from raiding the Social Security Trust Funds is an essential first step to ensure Social Security will be there for current beneficiaries, baby boomers and our children and grandchildren. I was pleased to join Senator Abraham and others to offer an amendment during the Senate floor consideration that made this our number-one priority under this budget. It is also notable, that under this budget, the debt held by the public will be reduced dramatically, much more than what President Clinton has proposed in his budget. This budget conference report reserves nearly $800 billion of the projected non-Social Security surplus--those are the tax overpayments of working Americans--earmarking $800 billion for tax relief. This is the largest tax relief enacted since President Reagan's tax cuts in the early 1980s. As one who has long championed major tax relief, I am pleased all Senators supported my resolution to protect this tax relief in the Budget Resolution. My language offers options for middle-income tax relief such as broad-based tax relief, marriage penalty relief, retirement savings incentives, death tax relief, health care-related tax relief, and education-related tax relief. The purpose of the provision is to assure the American people that we have made a commitment to major tax relief, and that there is room in this budget to fulfill this commitment while protecting Social Security and Medicare, providing debt relief and respecting some new spending priorities. I am particularly pleased, Mr. President, that this budget conference report has retained my proposal which could allow us to lock in for immediate tax relief any additional on-budget surplus as re-estimated in July by the Congressional Budget Office for fiscal year 2000. I believe this is solid protection for the American taxpayers. I thank the Senate majority leader and, again, Chairman Domenici for retaining this important provision in the budget conference report. As the economy continues to be strong, we may have more revenue windfalls to come in the next 10 years that are above and beyond the Social Security surplus. We must return these tax overpayments to hard- working Americans. They should benefit from the surpluses they are paying in rather than allowing Washington to stand first in line saying, ``Let's spend your money rather than giving it back.'' The logic for tax relief is fairly simple. Despite a shrinking Federal deficit and a predicted onbudget surplus, the total tax burden on working Americans today is at an all-time high. Americans today have the largest tax burden ever in history--even larger than during World War II--and the tax burden is still growing. Federal taxes today consume about 21 percent of the total national income. A typical American family now pays about 40 percent in total taxes on everything they earn. That is more than it spends on food, clothing, transportation, and housing combined. So they are spending more to support Uncle Sam than they do on the basic necessities of life. It is still imperative to provide tax relief for working Americans and address our long-term fiscal imbalances. Not only does this budget fund all the functions of the Government, but it also significantly increases funding for our budget priorities, such as defense, education, Medicare, agriculture, and others. Although I have reservations about some new spending increases, including this conference report, I think overall the report is well balanced. This conference report also retains the Senate-passed amendment that Senator Grassley and I offered. This provision would reserve up to $6 billion for crop insurance reform. Including this funding increase in the budget conference report is an important step, I believe, in realizing our goal of real crop insurance reform to help ailing farmers. One of the promises made during the debate of the 1996 farm bill was that Congress would address the need for a better system for crop insurance. Last year, we witnessed devastating circumstances come together in my home State of Minnesota to create a crisis atmosphere for many of our farmers and for farmers around the country, as well. We also saw the current Federal Crop Insurance Program fail for far too many farmers. Funds for crop insurance reform are the best dollars we can spend to help American agriculture, and this is a far better way to assist farmers than any of the spending that we have included in the emergency spending bills. We need to pass this. Finally, Mr. President, unlike President Clinton's budget, which, again, has broken the spending caps by over $22 billion, this budget maintains the fiscal discipline by retaining the spending caps. There are those who claim we cannot avoid breaking the caps as we proceed to reconcile this budget. I say if we do our job to oversee Government programs, we will know which areas can be streamlined and which program funding can be shifted to new priorities. Let's make sure we do our job to justify all Government funds are wisely spent. In closing, cutting taxes, reducing the national debt, and reforming and protecting Social Security and Medicare at the same time are all possible. It is not either/or. It is not either Social Security or giving tax cuts. We can do all with what we have in the budget. This budget conference report has showed us how we can do it. The bigger challenge facing us now is that we must have the strong political will to follow through on this budget. We must defend the principles and priorities highlighted in this budget blueprint through the entire appropriations and reconciliation processes, as well as in other legislative initiatives during the first session of this Congress. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve the goals set forth in this budget. Again, I commend the Senate majority leader and also committee Chairman Domenici for putting this budget together. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, may I ask the order of business on the floor?

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, very much.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I just want to take a little time to talk today, because today is, of course, the infamous April 15 tax day. I know a lot of Americans are out there still working at the kitchen table at this time, working the pencils, trying to wade through thousands of pages, or at least dozens of pages, or all of the forms that they have trying to figure out their income tax by tonight. There are going to be long lines as people use every last minute to try to get this tax that they owe to the Federal Government in order. So that is the day that I think most Americans dread. That is April 15. For many American taxpayers, it is this usual routine. By this time there are only a few hours left to complete their tax form before midnight. They are going to be rushing to the Post Office. They are going to find themselves on the late night news as their local TV stations are showing footage of all these last-minute filers dropping the envelope into the mail slot to at least meet the filing deadline and finally be done with this. But even for those who file early, those who aren't going through all of this turmoil tonight, tax season, of course, is full of stress. Not only do we wade through endless paperwork but we also come face to face with the reality of just how big a bite Uncle Sam takes from us every year. Mr. President, have we ever really stopped to wonder why it needs to be this way? Do we stop to consider better alternatives to the current tax system? It sure doesn't make a lot of sense to me, because our current Tax Code is outdated. It makes our tax system among the least efficient. It makes our tax system among the most oppressive in the world. Everyone knows this. And, yet, it seems to get worse every year, and we don't do anything about it. When we have tried to give a little tax relief, or reform some of the Tax Code, what we have done is made it more complicated and added hundreds of pages. So we have made the tax system even worse in an effort to try to reform it and make it better. Congress, of course, is the first in line to blame because of this. Thanks to a Government that does not know when to stop spending, tax collections have grown faster than our economy has grown in the past 5 years. And tax collections have grown twice as fast as the income of working Americans. So the Government is growing faster than Americans' working income. Hikes in the personal income tax--and particularly the increase in the effective tax rates--have propelled this increase in revenue. As Americans are working harder to try to earn a little bit more money, our tax system is taking more away from them in doing so because our tax system pushes more of them into the higher tax brackets. Since 1993, just 6 years ago, Federal taxes have increased for average workers 54 percent, which for the average taxpayer translates into about a $2,000 per year tax increase. So, if you look back at what you were paying on average in 1993 compared to what you are paying in taxes to the Federal Government today, the Federal Government is taking $2,000 a year more in taxes. As a result, Americans today have the largest tax burden, even more than in World War II, and it is still growing. Federal taxes now consume nearly 21 percent of the national income. Twenty-one percent of everything produced in this country goes to Federal taxes. That is compared to just over 18 percent in 1992. So, again, over the last 6 years, Government has taken 3 percent more of national income than in 1992. A typical American family today, when we say they are at the highest tax rate in history--even more than paying off and fighting in World War II--the typical American family today is paying 40 percent of its total income in taxes, more than the family spends on food, clothing, transportation, and housing combined. So they are spending more to support Uncle Sam than they are supporting their families with the necessities. And compare that to the average tax rate of only 2.75 percent in 1916 when Congress first got the authority to level income taxes from 2.75 percent in 1916 to over 40 percent for the average family today taken by Government. Another comparison worth noting is that Tax Freedom Day, the day that Americans can stop working for the Government and begin working for the families: If you start working on January 1, how long into the year do you have to work to make enough money to pay the taxes that you will be responsible for for that year? For families, it was May 13 last year. Americans that started working January 1, worked until May 13 to pay their taxes, the latest date ever in history. In 1915, in comparison, Tax Freedom Day was April 3. It will probably set another record this year. Despite a huge budget surplus over the next 10 years, the President, in the White House budget, has failed to offer even a single significant tax cut for working Americans. Instead, this administration's most recent budget proposes to increase taxes by at least $50 billion over the next 5 years. Even during a time of prosperity and surpluses, that is not enough for the appetite of this administration when it comes to spending. They are going to increase taxes by at least a net $50 billion over the next 5 years, $90 billion over the next decade. The good news is that the budget blueprint that we passed today on the Senate floor is reserving nearly $800 billion of the nonSocial Security surplus. That is important. We are not taking any money out of Social Security dollars to use for any kind of tax relief but $800 billion of nonSocial Security surplus over the next 10 years for tax relief. There are basically two streams of surplus coming into Washington: One is from payroll taxes, the Social Security money; the other is from overcharging on income taxes. We are setting aside in our lockbox the $1.8 trillion in overpayment on payroll taxes or Social Security and locking that away so it can't be spent or used for anything but Social Security. The big debate is over what we will do with the other $800 billion, about 38 percent of this budget surplus. Again, the President wants to spend it, and more, over the next 10 years. We are saying it is an overcharge that should go back to the taxpayers. For Washington, this is a surplus. This is not money that Washington is entitled to. It is like finding a wallet on the sidewalk. If it has $100 in it, you can do one of two things: You can keep the money, and that would be stealing; or you could find the rightful owner and give it back. That is what Washington has done. It found the surplus and it can do one of two things: It can keep it and spend it, which would be stealing it from the taxpayers; or it can send it back to the rightful people, the taxpayers. Our $800 billion of nonSocial Security surplus over the next 10 years for tax relief would be the largest tax relief since the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s. The Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s were about $1.4 trillion over 5 years in today's dollars. This is about half and it is over twice as long. This is about 25 percent of what the Reagan tax cuts were in the 1980s, but it is something that we need to make an investment in in our society. It is like investing in research and development. We need to invest money into the economy in order for the economy to continue to grow and to produce the better jobs and the better wages that we need. We have had this unprecedented expansion in our economy over the last 18 years and most of the credit goes to the seeds that were planted with the Reagan tax cuts in the early 1980s that spurred this economic growth. I think that our commitment to set aside another $800 billion over 10 years to go back into the form of tax relief, investment in consumers, investment in the economy proves that this Congress is committed to providing meaningful tax relief in 1999 and, again, providing tax relief while protecting Social Security, protecting Medicare, reducing the national debt, and also funding important national priorities as well. Whatever form the tax relief eventually takes, whether it is my 10- percent, across-the-board income tax cut which I have proposed in Senate bill 3, a 10-percent, across-the-board reduction in all the rates--in other words, if you owe the $4,000 in taxes this year to the Federal Government, take 10 percent off from that, keep $400 and send in $3,600. If it was $5,000, you get a $500 tax break. If it was $1,000, you get a $100 tax break. It is even, across the board 10 percent. Other tax-cut provisions on the table being debated include the elimination of the marriage penalty. Again, the average couple in this country spends about $1,400 or more in taxes just because they are married. We think that is unfair. Another option is the death tax or the dreaded estate tax--cut or eliminate that. Also, a cut in the capital gains tax. Or it could be a combination of all of these or some of these. It is a fact that Washington is finally focused on tax relief. I think that is good news for Americans. In our budget, we provided meaningful tax relief, earmarking $800 billion in surplus over the next 10 years to go to tax relief. Again, the $800 billion in nonSocial Security surplus represents a tax overpayment. We have to stress that. This is a tax overpayment by hard- working Americans, a tax overpayment that should be returned to them. Another way to say that, in a restaurant if your bill is $17 and you go to the counter and give $20, you expect to get the change back; if you have overpaid, you expect to get the change back. But Washington is saying, you overpaid but, jeez, like the President said in Buffalo, NY, in January, we could give the surplus back, but what if you don't spend it right? In other words, you are smart enough to earn the money, but you are too dumb to know how to spend it. The Government knows how to spend it better than you do. The Government will spend it on better things than what you could spend it on for your family--maybe braces for your children, dance lessons, to begin a college education fund, maybe repairing the furnace. Somehow, that priority does not fit into Washington's scheme, because Washington thinks maybe you won't spend it right; Washington can spend it better. I believe that Americans know what is best for their families and their lives. If it is their money, they should be given the right to spend it the way they see fit to support their families. A new study by the Congressional Research Service reports if we don't provide tax relief, the average household will pay $5,307 more in taxes than is needed to fund the Government. Think of what the average household can do if they could keep $5,300 more of their money, rather than sending it to Washington. Of course, maybe some believe Washington can spend it better, but the people I talk to in my home State of Minnesota believe that they would have a better place to put that money than Washington. Tax relief may temporarily relieve our pain, but the Tax Code, as I said, I believe is the root of all our tax evils. It is not the employees at the IRS, it is not the agents. They are trying to labor under some very, very complicated rules and regulations of the IRS Tax Code. Again, that is Congress over the last 50 years, with one layer on top of another, on top of another, on top of another, of Tax Codes, regulations, tax breaks, incentives, special interests or whatever it might be. The IRS is trying to dig out from underneath this or at least provide the information for us to file the taxes. It is Congress that needs to get its act in gear and do something to change it. We held hearings last year in the Finance Committee. Senator Roth did a great job on showing some of the abuses in the IRS and how the code really is oppressive. It is antifamily, antigrowth, antieconomy. We did make some changes. But a few changes is like putting lipstick on a pig. The IRS still is not pretty. We need to do something more than make a few changes. The Federal Tax Code stretches on for more than 7 million words. It is made up of four huge volumes, each thicker than the Bible, with another 20 volumes of regulation and thousands and thousands of pages of regulations. The Declaration of Independence took only 1,337 words to set the entire American Revolution in motion. Today, we have 7 million words in our Tax Code that state how the Federal Government will collect taxes. The Government publishes 480 separate tax forms. The IRS mails out over 8 billion pages of forms and instructions every year. Congress has revised the tax law a total of 5,400 times just since the 1986 Tax Reform Act. In 13 years, 5,400 times the Tax Code has been revised. Who could possibly keep track of all those changes? Not even the best tax lawyers and CPAs in the country understand the Tax Code completely. Not even the experts at the IRS itself can understand the Tax Code completely. Taxpayers today spend billions of dollars a year trying to comply with its dizzying rules and regulations. The IRS today employs over 102,000 agents to collect taxes. Now, 102,000 agents to collect taxes, that is more agents than the FBI and the CIA have combined. So I think that is just proof that tax collection has become the primary function and goal of the Federal Government. That is the largest agency in Government, the IRS--102,000 agents to collect taxes. I guess you put the people where your priorities are. So we can see the Federal Government's priority is to collect as much in taxes from you as it can. Our current tax system is antifamily, anti-economic growth; by any standards, it encourages abuse, it encourages waste, it encourages corruption. To solve this problem forever, we have to do one thing and that is uproot the current tax system. We need to replace it with one that promotes freedom, that promotes economic opportunity. We must repeal the income tax and other taxes, and we have to abolish the IRS-- again, not because of the people there, but because of the system that is so complex we cannot understand it anymore. We must create a new tax system, one that is fair, a system that is simple and a system that is friendly to the taxpayers--not an adversary. There is an increasing national consensus that the current system is unfair, a system that we must end, and that the Tax Code as we know it has to be eliminated. But the unresolved question is: How should we replace the Tax Code? I am a cosponsor of a bill in the Senate called the Tax Code Elimination Act, which would sunset the current Tax Code by January 1 of the year 2003--in other words, get rid of it, pull it out by the roots, say it is all done, repeal the 16th amendment, and we will start all over from scratch. The White House said: That is irresponsible. How could you eliminate a Tax Code before you have something to replace it? I think we all know that Congress would never let one day go by that it did not have the ability to collect taxes. So if we had the ability to pass this bill today, Congress would work overtime, or on weekends, if it had to, in order to put a new system in place to collect that first dollar of new taxes in the year 2003. So I do not have any worries about that. The biggest job is going to be finding the political will to get rid of the Tax Code we have today. There is an increasing national consensus that the current system is unfair. Ask your neighbor if he thinks this is a fair code. We must end the Tax Code as we know it today. But, again, the unresolved question is: What to do to replace the code? I have been exploring alternative tax systems for quite awhile and, after considerable study of the issue, I believe the national sales tax plan is the best solution to our problems. I used to support a flat tax. I think most Americans would say a flat tax would be a good alternative. That is the one that has gotten probably the most publicity. But it needs to have a lot of examination. In fact, a couple of Congressmen in the House, Congressmen Dick Armey and Billy Tauzin, went on the road last year to about 30 different cities, doing what they called townhall meetings on tax issues and what to do to replace the current Tax Code with something else. Representative Dick Armey of Texas supported the flat tax, Congressman Tauzin of Louisiana supported a national sales tax. They played to crowds of about 5,000 people or more at some of their stops. So Americans are interested in this. They want to have some information, they want to know what some of the alternatives would be and how they would work. But when you talk about flat tax versus national sales tax--which are probably the two leading alternatives-- going into the meetings, about 75 percent said they would prefer a flat tax--again, because they have heard it most, it sounds like the most simple plan--but after an hour and a half or 2 hours of this townhall meeting, as they came out, 75 percent favored a national sales tax. What we need to do is begin the debate. We need to do more than just 30 town meetings around the country. We need to do this here in the Senate. We need to be part of the campaign, to start talking about Tax Code relief or reform, so the American public at least gets some information on what the Tax Code is today, how oppressive it is, and what we can do to replace it, what are some of the alternatives. I think that is the way we need to lead in order to get some tax relief. Any new tax system, I think, has to do a couple of things. First, it must restore the fundamental principles of taxation upon which this whole country was founded, and they are low taxes and limiting the taxing power of Government. It must fairly and efficiently distribute the burden of funding our Government. It must promote economic growth, not be anti-economic growth. It must present less of a compliance burden, and that is, again, not having to spend billions of dollars a year, every year, just to be able to fill out the tax forms and meet that requirement. And it has to offer every American better economic opportunity. The national sales tax would do that. The national sales tax system, which I intend to introduce soon, with other Senators, I think meets these very important criteria. It is fairer, more simple, it is friendlier, it will increase economic growth, it will increase investment, it will help with capital formation, and it will create new jobs and savings. Under the national sales tax system, working Americans will be able to keep 100 percent of their pay, their pension, or Social Security check. They no longer need to file a tax return with the IRS. Their family's finances are not revealed to Government bureaucrats. They will not be penalized for getting or staying married, and they will not be penalized, by the way, for dying either. Everyone will pay the same tax rate without loopholes, without any special interest groups. There will not be any hidden taxes, and everybody will easily understand the tax. They will be able to understand exactly how much they are paying in taxes. And, finally, it will abolish the IRS completely. Does this sound too good to be true? It may sound that way, but believe me, it is real. Let me briefly highlight how the national sales tax legislation would be able to achieve this. First, the legislation will call for the repeal of the constitutional amendment that created the tax nightmare that we find ourselves in today. Mr. President, the 16th amendment is the root of the tax evil. It abandoned our Founding Fathers' original principle of taxation by giving the Government unlimited power to tax the private income of American people. Without the repeal of this amendment, any tax system will eventually become abusive and intrusive. First and foremost, get rid of the 16th amendment. Second, the legislation will repeal the income tax. It will get rid of the payroll tax, the estate tax, the gift tax, the capital gains tax, the self-employment tax, the corporate tax, and all the other taxes out there. Third, the legislation will impose a single rate on all new goods and services at the point of final purchase, the final point of purchase for consumption, and it will provide a universal rebate in the amount equal to the sales tax paid on essential goods and services such as food and medicines. So, in other words, for low-income or whatever the income is, if you are saying you cannot do this because you are going to be charging more on foods and medicines and necessities, that is not true. There will be a rebate for that. But it is a single rate on all new goods and services at the point of final purchase for consumption. Every American will be better off under the national sales tax system. I believe it will create expanded economic opportunities for our Nation and for our people. The process of implementing the national sales tax system is going to be a long one. There is going to be a lot of debate. So in the interim we must reduce the tax burden on overtaxed Americans. I think a lot of us would like to go to eliminating the IRS tomorrow if we could, and cement in place a new tax system. But what do we do in the interim, until that debate is completed, before we can make that happen, before we can begin putting in a fair, simple, friendly tax system? I think that is why our budget includes the $800 billion of tax relief now. This is interim tax relief, but we have to make sure our residents, our workers, at least have some relief from the burden they are paying-- again, the highest in the history of taxes. For those taxpayers who are satisfied with the current system, I wish them the best of luck in preparing their taxes this year. For others, like the hundreds of Minnesotans who tell me they are tired of filling out the complex and endless tax forms, who tell me they do not think it is fair that the Government takes so much of their hard-earned dollars, I invite you to join me in rethinking our tax system. I think we can work together now to create a new and more fair way to fund the Federal Government, one that ultimately makes April 15 just another day, just another day of the year, and not this day that everybody dreads and hates and is now spending many hours, tonight, trying to figure out exactly what they owe in taxes. Again, I do not know if 40 percent is a fair amount of income to pay to the Federal Government. I do a lot of town meetings, or talk with students. I always like to ask a question to start with: What do you think is a fair percentage of your income that should go to support government? We all need a good government. This is not about getting rid of the government. This is not getting rid of the Federal, State, or local governments. But what is an adequate amount of money to fund the Government, and what kind of services should we demand the Government provide with those tax dollars, not the waste and abuse that is in the system today. Today, if the system runs out of money, they just add more money to it, not look at where the abuse is, whether the money is being spent right. Are we overpaying for services we do not get? This Government has never had to do what business has to do, and that is, look at how we can provide a service at the least possible cost. If they run out of money, they just want to raise taxes again, raise taxes again, raise taxes again. When I ask this question at townhall meetings or at town meetings in high schools, of course some will say zero percent. That is not rational. But then we get into the basics, and it usually comes out, people say around 15, 20, maybe 25 percent of their income should go to support all levels of government--Federal, State, and local. But then you tell them they are spending, today, 40 percent of their income to support government. So, for all of those who are filling out their taxes tonight or have time to take a look at your pay stubs, take a look at exactly how much you are spending on taxes, and then you can figure in the sales tax, your property tax, all the other taxes that you pay, and just find out how much of your income is going to support government. Again, for the average family in this country, they are spending more to support Uncle Sam than they are spending on the necessities; That is, food, clothing, shelter, and transportation, and even, in most cases, recreation combined. So the Government is taking a bigger bite out of their paycheck than their family is getting. I think it is time we look at this and find how we can reduce this and allow hard-working Americans to keep a little bit more of their money in their pockets rather than sending it to Washington. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Roth as an original co-sponsor of legislation to amend Section 45 of the tax code for the production of electricity from environmentally-friendly methods, including poultry litter, the Poultry Electric Power Act. Mr. President, our nation's poultry consumption continues to grow in rapid numbers. We now produce almost 8 billion chickens a year in the United States. My home State of Minnesota is now the nation's largest producer of turkeys, with an estimated 44 million produced last year alone. According to the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association, Minnesota turkey producers and processors earned 1997 incomes of $180 million and spinoff industries earned $374 million in 1996. In Minnesota, the turkey industry includes 2,810 jobs in production and 4,552 jobs in processing. So, Mr. President, you can see that the poultry industry is extremely important to rural Minnesota. I continue to believe that we must explore a wide variety of alternative energy sources that provide a number of benefits for our nation. First, this bill will provide another market and revenue source for our farmers who so badly need diversified sources of income. Second, the bill will assist our nation in increasing our energy security. Third, this bill will help to improve the environment not only by providing a clean energy source, but by assisting in the disposal of poultry manure in an environmentally friendly way. Fourth, this bill will help create spin-off jobs for our nation's rural communities--jobs many rural communities badly need. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and I want to thank Senator Roth for leading this important effort in the Senate.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, again, what I am talking about is supporting the middle-income tax relief included in this budget resolution. This is a crucial amendment that we all should support. This amendment says that the Senate Budget Resolution places a priority not only on protecting Social Security and Medicare and reducing the Federal debt, but also on middle-income tax relief by returning nearly $800 billion of the non-Social Security surplus to those from whom it was taken. It discusses options for middle-income tax relief such as broad-based tax relief, marriage penalty relief, retirement savings incentives, death tax relief, health care-related tax relief, and education-related tax relief. This amendment does not put us on record as supporting any one form of tax relief, or any particular combination. That is the task of the Finance Committee under the able leadership of Senator Roth. While many of us will discuss our own preferences for the tax relief, our job today is to support the nearly $800 billion total, recognizing the need for tax relief, and then to ask the Finance Committee to come up with specific tax relief proposals. Again, Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to assure the American people that we've made a commitment to major tax relief, and that there is room in this budget to fulfill this commitment while protecting Social Security and Medicare, providing debt relief and respecting some new spending priorities. I just heard it said in the last debate on the farm issues, ``if there is something for a tax cut,'' or ``if that is a priority''--it should be a priority. There would not be a surplus if American taxpayers had not been overcharged and paid more in taxes than they should have. What they are doing is fighting over how can they spend those dollars, rather than trying to find a way to give those overcharges back to the people who paid them. Mr. President, let me highlight a few points as to why we must provide a major tax relief this year. Polls showed many Americans were skeptical about whether they would ever get meaningful tax relief this year. They have good reason to be skeptical about President Clinton's rhetoric on tax relief. Despite a huge on-budget surplus over the next 10 years, President Clinton has failed to secure a single significant tax cut for working Americans. Instead, he has proposed to increase our taxes by at least $50 billion in his budget over the next five years and $90 billion over 10 years. He also spends $158 billion right out of the Social Security surplus he claims to protect. President Clinton talks about helping the American people build retirement security but to offset his new spending, he has proposed many new taxes including taxing life insurance products, which will hurt the retirement annuities of millions of Americans. The President talked about helping small business, but he has proposed to tax the income of non-profit trade associations and change the tax treatment for ESOPs, which will adversely affect millions of small businesses. These are just some of his new taxes that will hurt hard-working Americans. Unlike President Clinton, our budget resolution has reserved nearly $800 billion of the non-Social Security budget surplus over the next 10 years for tax relief. This is in fact the largest tax relief since President Reagan's. This amendment has once again proved the Republican majority is committed to providing meaningful tax relief in 1999 as well as protecting Social Security, Medicare, reducing the debt, and funding important priorities. Mr. President, with more middle-income workers being thrown into higher tax brackets, the ``middle class tax squeeze'' is devastating. There are over 20 million workers today with annual earnings between $20,000 and $50,000. Before 1993, they paid income tax at the 15 percent rate. But most of them have now been pushed into the 28 percent tax bracket due to inflation and economic growth. Worse still, they have to pay the 28 percent federal income tax rate on top of a 15.3 percent payroll tax. This adds up to a tax rate of 43 percent, without counting state, local tax, and other taxes. So any gains they made in wages have been taken by Washington. The bigger tax bite continues to eat up more of their wages. Again, my point, Mr. President, is that this non-Social Security surplus is nothing but tax overpayments, and it should be returned to the taxpayers, not spent, as you are going to hear argued here on the floor day after day, hour after hour--``let's spend it.'' It should be given back to the taxpayers. How to use the remaining surplus once we wall off Social Security has been the central focus of this year's budget debate. The Democrats want Washington to spend it because they don't believe the American people can be trusted to use it responsibly. We're heard it before, but let me remind you what the President said about the surplus during a speech in Buffalo in January: ``We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right, [but[ if you don't * * *.'' You are smart enough to earn the money, but you are not quite smart enought to know how to spend it. A top aide to the President, Paul Begala, said, ``We could squander the surplus by giving a tax cut.'' So, in other words, we have overcharged you and taken more money from you than we should have, or you have paid more in, but to give it back would be squandering it. Washington thinks they should spend it. Republicans want to give the surplus back to working Americans--those who paid too much taxes in the first place. We've recently heard some claims on the Senate floor that the American people today aren't interested in tax relief. That's not what I'm seeing and hearing. Those who don't care about tax relief are a minority, especially in my state. Tax relief continues to be a major interest of Minnesotans. Mr. President, let me read to you letters from just three of the many Minnesotans who have taken time to contact me: Ken Ebensteiner from Audubon, Minnesota wrote: ``* * * please understand that the silent majority are sick and tired of all the taxes and regulations. We're just too busy working to voice our opinions.'' Taxpayers are working, and don't have the time to come to Washington. They can't afford to defend themselves because the government takes so much of their income. Washington's philosophy is apparently, ``Keep them poor, keep them quiet, keep them home.'' Rev. Craig Palach of Fergus Falls wrote: ``With four children--two soon to be in college, one beginning to think about college, and one in a parochial school--I could sure use some of the money that goes to taxes.'' But again, the President says Rev. Craig Palach wouldn't spend it right. The third letter, this one by Alicia Jones of White Bear Lake, is right on target with the story she shared. She wrote: Last year, both my husband and I had graduated from college and had just begun working full time. I have never written a letter like this before, but after completing my taxes for 1998, I felt that this was my only option. I can't do anything about the amount of money my husband and I will have to pay to both the federal and state governments, but I hope that you can be active in making changes for next year. During 1998, my husband and I both worked full time in professional careers. We have no children and we are renting an apartment, saving to buy a house. Based on the fact that we both work, we are married, we have no children, and that we do not own a house--when we filed our taxes this year we owed approximately $700 more in federal income taxes, on top of the over $10,000 that we have already had taken out of our paychecks * * *. I am frustrated by this, I'm frustrated for the future--how do we get ahead, when each year we have to take money from our savings to pay more for our taxes. I hope that you will remember my concern. But again, presidential aide Paul Begala says Alicia would ``squander'' any tax cut. Working people have good reason to ask for a tax cut. Since 1993, Federal taxes have increased by 50 percent--50 percent. That is a tax increase of nearly $4,000 a year for a Alicia and her husband--50 percent; $4,000 more in the last 6 years. As a result, Americans today have the largest tax burden since World War II, and it is still growing. Federal taxes consume now 21 percent of the total national income. A typical American family pays nearly 40 percent in total taxes. And that is more than it spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined. People should go home and look at their pay stubs and find out exactly how much of their money is going to support Government, and how much they have left. And then figure out whether they should have a tax cut. Mr. President, why should we continue taxing middle-class Americans at such a high rate? Who can rightfully argue that they don't need a tax cut? Who can argue that it is fair to take more than 40 percent of a person's income so Government can spend it? That is why I, along with Senator Roth and others, introduced bill No. S. 3, the Tax Cuts for All Americans Act. Our bill calls for a 10- percent across-the-board income tax for working Americans. It is simple, fair, profamily, and progrowth. It will help millions of middle-income families to avoid the middle-income ``real income bracket creep'' that they have been subjected to since 1993. Although I prefer broad-based tax relief, I understand this is just one of many tax relief proposals that are on the table. Again, there is nothing in this budget that endorses one proposal over the others. All we have done is to reserve some of the non-Social Security surplus for tax relief. The Finance Committee will consider all tax relief proposals and decide how this reserved onbudget surplus should be distributed. It is my hope that we can use the surplus to provide broad-based tax relief as well as other tax relief I support which would give families a break, and encourage savings, encourage investment, and provide incentives for higher education. I remember vividly when I first proposed the $500-per-child tax credit back in 1993. The naysayers called it bad policy, even dangerous. Democrats accused us of cutting taxes for the rich. That sounds familiar, doesn't it? Every time it is a tax cut, it is for somebody else. Some in Congress contended it was too costly, and others argued that we should balance the budget first. I argued then repeatedly that we could, and should, do both. And we did. As a result, we now have a balanced budget, and the largest non-Social Security surplus in U.S. history. Cutting taxes, reducing the national debt, and reforming and protecting Social Security and Medicare at the same time are all possible. We can to it again. Mr. President, we must do it again. That is what this budget is about, and that is what this amendment is about. I urge my colleagues to strongly support reserving this money for tax relief for working Americans. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.