Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. And approved?

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.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Roth.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment to the desk. With a few changes, hopefully, it has been accepted on both sides. We submit this amendment and hope to get it approved.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer this sense-of-the- Senate amendment with Senators Roth, Coverdell and Abraham. I ask unanimous consent to add the names of Senators Hagel, Burns, McCain and Craig as original cosponsors as well.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of sending a strong anti-drug message during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Resolution. As we approach the new millennium, one of the most difficult challenges facing our country is the sale, manufacture and distribution of illegal drugs. Drug abuse is a daily threat to the lives of young people and the health and safety of our families. We must strengthen our resolve to developing and innovative and effective drug strategy. The National Institute on Drug Abuse recently reported that 54 percent of high school seniors reported illegal use of a drug at least once in their lives, 42 percent reported use of an illegal drug in the past year and 26 percent reported use of an illegal drug in the past month. Clearly the American people need Congress to recommit this nation to ridding our schools and streets of drugs. I believe that our nation can reverse these troubling trends in drug abuse and decrease the number of Americans who use drugs. First and foremost, we must enforce our existing drug laws. Second, we must make a commitment to public education and community-based prevention programs, as well as effective treatment for those drug abusers who are motivated enough to accept treatment. We must ensure that local communities and law enforcement agencies have the tools to develop effective drug prevention and education programs. In my view, adequate funding for programs such as the Byrne grant program, the federal ``Weed and Seed'' initiative and the ``Drug Free Communities Act'' program is critical to providing resources and guidance to local communities in my home state of Minnesota to help develop solutions to this problem and expand their anti-drug education and prevention programs. And finally, we must actively support the eradication and interdiction of drugs before they reach our borders. Illegal drugs are easy to find and cheap to buy. And there is no doubt that contributes to the high rate of drug use among our nation's children. We've got to invest this nation's resources in making sure more of these drugs never reach our shores. If we can reduce the supply of drugs, the price will go up. If we can reduce the supply of drugs, they'll be harder to find, and fewer American children will fall into drug use. That is why the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act and the Drug Free Century Act is so important. A counter-drug strategy which does not give sufficient weight to international interdiction and eradication efforts cannot succeed. The federal government must continue to work closely with local officials to combat the threat of illegal drug use, trafficking, and manufacturing to our children's future. A united commitment by Congress, parents, schools, city councils, faith-based organizations and medical institutions will help to create a drug-free America. Failure to act will only increase the likelihood that we will lose control of our neighborhoods to drug-related crime and violence. Sense of the Senate on Federal Research and Development

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I join Senator Abraham, Chairman of the Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, Mr. President. Minnesota and Michigan are two states which share a common border with Canada, and so I am proud to join my colleague, Senator Abraham as co-sponsor of his bill to ensure Canada will continue to receive current treatment of its traveling citizens by requiring a feasibility study of Section 110 of the IIRIRA bill. There has been great concern, especially in Minnesota as to how the immigration law we passed in 1996 will affect the northern U.S. border. Right now the fear is the law is being misinterpreted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Minnesota has about 817 miles of shared border with Canada and we share many interests with our northern neighbor--tourism, trade and family visits among the most prevalent. In the last few years, passage back and forth over the Minnesota/Canadian border has been more open and free flowing, especially since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect. There were 116 million travelers entering the U.S. from Canada in 1996 over the land border. As our relationship with Canada is increasingly interwoven, we have sought a less restrictive access to each country. The Immigration Bill of 1996 was intended to focus on illegal aliens entering this country from Mexico and living in the United States illegally. The new law states that ``every alien'' entering and leaving the United States would have to register at all the borders--land, sea and air. The Immigration and Naturalization Service was tasked with the effort to set up automated pilot sites along the border to discover the most effective way to implement this law, which was to become effective on September 30, 1998. The INS was quietly going about establishing a pilot site on the New York State border when the reality sunk in. A flood of calls from constituents came into the offices of all of us serving Canadian border states. Canadian citizens and the Canadian government, also, registered opposition to this new restriction. It became quite clear that no one had considered how the new law affected Canada. Current law already waives the document requirement for most Canadian nationals, but still requires certain citizens to register at border crossings. That system has worked. There have been very few problems at the northern border with drug trafficking and illegal aliens. In an effort to resolve this situation, I joined other Senators in a letter to INS Commissioner Meissner asking for her interpretation of this law. Other bills were introduced addressing this issue in the last Congress and action was taken extending the implementation of this Section until March 30, 2001. However, today, we must make it very clear that Congress did not intend to impose additional documentary requirements on Canadian nationals; Senator Abraham's bill will restore our intent. This legislation will not precipitously open the flood gates for illegal aliens to pass through--it will still require those who currently need documentation to continue to produce it and remain registered in a new INS system. This will allow the INS to keep track of that category of non-immigrant entering our country to ensure they leave when their visas expire. Senator Abraham's bill will not unfairly treat our friends on the Canadian side that have been deemed not to need documentation--they will still be able to pass freely back and forth across the border. But this bill will enable us to avoid the huge traffic jams and confusion which would no doubt occur if every alien was to be registered in and out of the U.S. Such registration would discourage trade and visits to our country. It would delay shipments of important industrial equipment, auto parts, services and other shared ventures that have long thrived along the northern border. It will discourage the economic revival that northern Minnesotans are experiencing, helped by Canadian shoppers and tourists. Mr. President, I do not believe Congress intended to create this new mandate. We sought to keep illegal aliens and illegal drugs out, not our trading partners and visiting consumers. Through the Abraham bill, we will still do that while keeping the door opened to our neighbors from the north. The bill is good foreign policy, good public policy and good economic policy. We all will benefit while retaining our ability to keep track of non-immigrants who enter our borders. Mr. President, I thank Senator Abraham for his leadership on this important matter. Many Minnesotans, through letters, calls and personal appeals, have showed their opposition to a potential crisis. This is, also, an unacceptable burden on our Canadian neighbors and those who depend upon their free access that effects the economics of all border states.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for increasing public awareness about the dangers of inhalant abuse. I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. Res. 47, recently passed by the Senate, which designates this week as ``National Inhalants and Poisons Awareness Week.'' Our nation's drug control policy correctly places emphasis upon finding solutions for combating the illegal sale, manufacture and trafficking of well-known abused substances such as cocaine and methamphetamine. However, I believe Congress and the President should do more to focus attention on an emerging but equally dangerous threat--inhalant abuse. As my colleagues may know, inhalant abuse is the intentional breathing of gas or vapors for the purpose of reaching a high. Most people are familiar with common household products such as furniture polish, paint thinner, glue, felt tip markers, and deodorants. However, many families are not aware of how misuse of these inhalants by children can result in sickness or death. Far too often, these inhalants have caused heart, brain, and liver damage in thousands of children across the country. Sadly, many children have died as a result of inhalant abuse, a condition known as Sudden Sniffing Death Syndrome. In 1990, four young people in my home state of Minnesota died in separate incidents after experimenting with inhalants. Continued misuse of these products may also lead to additional illicit drug use. Additionally, the National Institute on Drug Abuse reported in 1996 that one in five American teenagers have used inhalants to get high. Over the last few years, our nation has witnessed an increase in new inhalant abusers from 382,000 in 1991 to an estimated 805,000 in 1996. In my view, these troubling trends can be reversed by educating the public about the dangers of this abuse and encouraging communities to develop effective treatment and prevention programs. In my view, greater awareness of inhalant abuse can best be achieved through passage of S. 609, legislation introduced by Senator Frank Murkowski that would amend the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 to include inhalant abuse among the Act's definition of ``substance abuse.'' Passage of this bill will give Minnesota and other states the opportunity to develop federally-funded inhalant abuse prevention and education programs. Importantly, these programs will be based on the active involvement of parents, teachers and local communities. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation which is an important element of our war on drugs. Mr. President, the federal government should not regulate the sale of these legal and inexpensive products which are found in almost every household. Instead, communities, parents and teachers should be encouraged to develop local solutions to this problem. A united effort toward this epidemic will help the United States make significant progress in our fight against drug abuse.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing on voluntary activities to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases Wednesday, March 24 at 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406).

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, Narcotics and Terrorism be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 24, 1999, at 10:00 am, to hold a hearing.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Committee on Governmental Affairs to meet on Wednesday, March 24, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on the Independent Counsel Act.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 24, 1999, at 10:00 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony on active and reserve military and civilian personnel programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2000 and the future years defense program.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on European Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 24, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 24, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a Hearing on S. 399, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Improvement Act of 1999. The Hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Securities of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 24, 1999, to conduct a hearing on ``fees collected under the Securities Act of 1933'' and ``Securities Exchange Act of 1934''.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 24, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. in open session, to receive testimony on Army modernization programs.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 24, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to receive testimony on campaign contribution limits.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 24, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on Intelligence Matters.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 24, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 323, a bill to redesignate the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument as a national park and to establish the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area, and for other purposes; S. 338, a bill to provide for the collection of fees for the making of motion pictures, television productions, and sound tracks in units of the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes; S. 568, a bill to allow the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to establish a fee system for commercial filming activities in a site or resource under their jurisdictions.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the tax relief and debt reduction lockbox amendment offered by my good friend, Senator Crapo of Idaho. We have worked a long time together, as he mentioned, both in the House and now in the Senate. We need to continue to push these efforts to reduce the tax burdens on Americans. This amendment would lock in any additional non-Social Security surplus into the outyears for tax relief and/or for debt reduction. Before I speak on this amendment, I would like to take this opportunity to commend Chairman Domenici for his leadership in crafting and delivering this well-balanced budget. I believe this budget blueprint is a great achievement of this Congress and it will ensure our continued economic growth and prosperity as we move into the next century. Mr. President, protecting Social Security, reducing the national debt and reducing taxes are imperative for our economic security and growth. Our strong economy has offered us an historic opportunity to achieve this three-pronged goal. Chairman Domenici has ably showed us in his budget how we can provide major tax relief while still preserving Social Security and dramatically reducing the national debt. President Clinton has proposed to spend over $158 billion of the Social Security surplus in his budget over the next 5 years for unrelated Government programs, instead of protecting Social Security. This budget 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 Fund is an essential first step to ensure that Social Security will be there for current beneficiaries, baby boomers and our children and grandchildren. I am pleased that this is the No. 1 priority under this budget. It is also notable, Mr. President, 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 also reserves nearly $800 billion of the projected non- Social Security surplus--the tax overpayments of working Americans--for tax relief. This is the largest tax relief that has been enacted since the leadership of President Ronald Reagan. As one who has long championed major tax relief, I am pleased that we have finally achieved some meaningful proposal in reducing our tax burden again. 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, for education, for Medicare, for agriculture, and others. In addition, Mr. President, unlike President Clinton's budget, which 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. But 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 better shifted to new priorities. Let's make sure we do our job to justify all Government funds are wisely spent. I am particularly pleased, Mr. President, that this budget has included one of my proposals which would allow us to lock in for immediate tax relief any additional on-budget surplus as re-estimated in July by the Congressional Budget Office of fiscal year 2000. I believe this amendment offered by Senator Crapo and myself is solid protection for the American taxpayers. I thank Chairman Domenici also for including my proposal in his budget as well. As the economy continues to be strong, we may have more revenue windfalls to come in the outyears that are above and beyond what this budget resolution has assumed. We also need to lock in these windfalls and we also need to return these tax overpayments to hard-working Americans. The logic for this amendment is fairly simple. Despite a shrinking Federal deficit and a predicted on-budget surplus, the total tax burden on working Americans is at an all-time high. It is still imperative to provide major tax relief for working Americans and address our long- term fiscal imbalances. We need to give back any additional on-budget surplus generated by economic growth to working Americans, and we need to do it in the form of tax relief and debt reduction. That is exactly what our amendment intends to achieve. This amendment would lock in any additional non-Social Security surplus--again, not Social Security surplus, but income tax surplus--that may be generated in the outyears which exceed the levels assumed under this budget. All we are saying is, if our economic growth produces more increased revenues than we expect, these revenues should be reserved and protected for the taxpayers in the form of tax relief and/or debt reduction. It should not be there for the Government to spend it as it pleases. One question we should ask ourselves before we decide how to spend any non-Social Security surplus is where the budget surplus comes from. The CBO has showed us precisely where we will get our revenues in the next 10 years. The data indicates that the greatest share of the projected budget surplus comes directly from income taxes paid by the taxpayers. Again, this is their money. There is no excuse not to reserve it and then return it to the people who paid it. If we don't lock in this surplus to the taxpayers, we all know that Washington will soon spend it all, leaving nothing for tax relief or the vitally important task of maintaining our long-term fiscal health. Such spending will only enlarge the Government. It will only make it even more expensive to support in the future. And it will create an even higher tax burden than working Americans bear today. Mr. President, I applaud the creation of the safe-deposit box for future Social Security surpluses to protect retirement security for our Nation's retirees. But I also believe we need to create a safe-deposit box of a similar mechanism to lock in any additional on-budget surplus for tax relief and/or debt reduction beyond the fiscal year 2000 re-estimate that is in the resolution. The Congressional Budget Office reports that by 2012, we will have eliminated all the debt held by the public and we will begin to accumulate assets. By 2020, the share of net assets to GDP is expected to reach 12 percent. This is great news. However, I believe we should use some of the on-budget surplus from the general fund to accelerate debt reduction. Currently we pay about $220 billion a year in interest. We saw from Senator Voinovich, in his charts, tonight how much we are spending every year just to pay the interest on the debt. The sooner we eliminate the debt, the more revenue we will have in hand to reform Social Security, to reduce our tax burden and to finance our priority programs. This amendment will help us to achieve that goal. We have also heard some say that Americans do not want tax relief. I hear that often: ``Americans don't want tax relief.'' Clearly they are completely out of touch with working Americans, and this is not what I hear when I listen to Minnesotans when I am at home. A poll conducted by Pew Research Center shows that 53 percent of the American people say that the budget surplus should be used for a tax cut. Fifty-three percent want a tax cut. Only 34 percent say that it should be used for additional Government programs. An Associated Press poll taken by ICR is even more specific. The following question was asked: President Clinton and Congress have predicted big budget surpluses in the next few years. Both sides want to set aside more than half of the surplus to bolster Social Security, but they disagree on how to spend the rest. The question goes on: Which one of the following uses of the remainder of the surplus do you favor most: paying down the national debt, cutting taxes, or spending more on government programs? The results of that survey: 49 percent said cutting taxes, 35 percent said to pay down the debt, and only 13 percent said that they wanted to spend more on Government programs. There was another question that was also asked. And the question was: Some Republicans want a 10% tax cut for everyone. President Clinton prefers tax credits for specific things like child care or taking care of disabled parents. Which approach do you like better? And the answer: 50 percent said they want a 10-percent cut for everyone, 44 percent want tax credits for specific things. Mr. President, Americans' message is loud and clear. They want--and deserve--major tax relief. Again, my biggest fear is that without the lockbox, the Government will spend the entire additional on-budget surplus generated by working Americans. Last year's omnibus appropriations legislation was a prime example of how the Social Security surplus was spent by Congress. This year's supplemental threatens to be equally abusive if we cannot agree on any offsets. Mr. President, as I conclude tonight, we must protect the interests of our taxpayers. We must secure the future for our children's prosperity. This amendment would allow families, again, the opportunity to keep just a little more of their own money and to provide a good downpayment on debt relief. I urge my colleagues strongly to support this amendment. Thank you very much. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAPO addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, at this moment, U.S. forces under NATO command are conducting air strikes against Serbia. And they have my full support and endorsement as they go into battle. We all hope that bombing Serbia ends the cycle of violence between the Serbs and ethnic Albanians in that region. Yesterday, I voted against authorizing the use of force because the President refused to explain to Congress and the American people how his goals would be achieved by bombing, and what our plan would be after the bombing stops--if Milosevic refuses to yield. I still do not see how bombing Serbia will bring about peace or end the atrocities being committed. I do not see how bombing Serbia will lead to the Administration's goals of greater political autonomy to Kosovo, the withdrawal of most Serbian military forces, protection of minorities, and a more equitable ethnic representation among local police. That being said, I fully support our troops and I'm confident they will carry out their mission successfully. We should all support our troops and hope that we have not started down a slippery slope where the President insists that in order to protect our credibility or NATO's credibility we have to send in U.S. ground troops. The U.S. officially recognizes that Kosovo is part of Serbia, which along with Montenegro, forms the sovereign state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has made it clear that Serbia does not want foreign troops on its soil. President Clinton, however, is bombing Serbia in order to force Serbia to agree to a peace accord which U.S. troops would be put on the ground to enforce--as an occupation force, not a peacekeeping force. There is an ongoing civil war between the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians and the combatants have not exhausted their will to fight. So when the President talks about sending 4,000 American military men and women to Kosovo, he is talking about making peace not keeping peace. The Kosovo Liberation Army is fighting for independence; the Serbs are fighting for complete control by Belgrade. While the Kosovars have accepted the U.S.-supported plan, neither side enthusiastically embraces the U.S.-supported plan of limited autonomy. This is a recipe for disaster. The President's decision to use NATO to attack Serbia fundamentally changes the nature of NATO. NATO has never attacked a country that has not threatened its neighbors or a member of the alliance. I do not think we should fundamentally change the nature of one of the most successful military alliances in history without a debate. Mr. President, I support our troops. And the best way that I can support them at this time is to declare that I will do everything in my power to make sure that U.S. troops are not put on the ground in Kosovo.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to S.Res. 53 appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. Res. 53 be discharged from the Judiciary Committee and the Senate now proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the safe-deposit box amendment to lock in any future Social Security surpluses to be used only for Social Security benefits, Social Security reform and national debt reduction. I am pleased to join Senators Abraham, Domenici, and Ashcroft in offering this amendment. Mr. President, we all agree that Social Security is facing a fast- approaching crisis and fundamental reforms are needed to save and strengthen the nation's retirement system. The question is, how do we proceed? President Clinton unveiled his Social Security proposal under his FY 2000 budget. The bottom line on his plan is that it allows the government to control the retirement dollars of the American people by investing it for them. It does nothing, however, to save Social Security from bankruptcy. Worse still, despite his rhetoric of 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. Let me say that again--under the President's budget, he proposes to take $158 billion from the Social Security surplus fund and spend it on other unrelated government programs. That is not saving Social Security first. 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 improve benefits. The fundamental problem with our Social Security system is that it's basically a Ponzi scheme--that is, 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. Social Security operates on a cash-in and cash-out basis. In 1998, American workers paid $517 billion into the system, but most of the money, $391 billion, was immediately paid out to 44 million beneficiaries the same year. That left a $126 billion surplus. The total accumulated surplus in the trust fund is $750 billion. Unfortunately, this surplus is only on paper. The government has consumed all the $750 billion for non-Social Security related programs. All it has is the Treasury IOUs that fit in four ordinary brown accordian-style folders that one can easily hold in both hands. So when Social Security begins to run a deficit, the government has to do a couple of things. The government has to either tighten its belt, raise taxes, or borrow more from the public, or it has to lower benefits or raise the retirement age. 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 to 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 his new government spending. Over the next five years, he will spend $158 billion of 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 for when the Social Security trust fund will begin real deficit spending. That date is still the same--2013. Social Security will have a shortfall that year and it the shortfall will continue to grow larger year after year. By 2025, the shortfall will be over $360 billion a year and by 2035, it will explode to $786 billion, but by 2055, the deficit will run as high as $2.07 trillion. 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. In last year's Humphrey-Hawkins hearing, I asked Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan whether we should allow the government to invest the Social Security Trust Funds in the markets, and if this is the right direction in which we should be going. Here are his exact words: No, I think it's very dangerous . . . I don't know of any way that you can essentially insulate government decision- makers from having access to what will amount to very large investments in American private industry . . . I am fearful that we are taking on a position here, at least in conjecture, that has very far-reaching, potential danger for a free American economy and a free American society. It is a wholly different phenomenon of having private investment in the market, where individuals own the stock and vote the claims on management, (from) having government (doing so). I know there are those who believe it can be insulated from the political process, they go a long way to try to do that. I have been around long enough to realize that that is just not credible and not possible. Somewhere along the line, that breach will be broken. Mr. President, Chairman Greenspan is right. We should never venture out onto what the Chairman calls ``a slippery slope of extraordinary magnitude.'' It is 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 amendment will achieve. This amendment would first take Social Security completely out of the Federal budget and it requires the surplus to be used only for Social Security benefits, Social Security reform and debt reduction. It creates a super-majority point of order for using this surplus for other purposes. The amendment also ensures all Social Security benefits will be paid in full. 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, not just to talk about it, but do it; not spend the money, but to set it aside. However, his plan does not do what he says while ours does. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind words of the Senator from Missouri.