Rod Grams

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 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, I ask unanimous consent that 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 full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal Policy, including S. 608, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999.

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. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this morning to introduce a bill dealing with the security of our embassies around the world. Mr. President, we all remember the horrible day of August 17, 1998, when U.S. embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya were destroyed by car bombs. We all mourn the passing of the 220 people who lost their lives to these heinous terrorist acts. But it is not enough to mourn. We in Congress have a separate responsibility--to conduct proper oversight to expose weaknesses in our embassy security requirements and to ensure the resources given to this Administration are being allocated in ways to maximize their effectiveness. In reviewing the conclusions of the State Department Accountability Review Boards chaired by Admiral William J. Crowe, I was disturbed to find that they are strikingly similar to those reached by the Inman Commission which issued an extensive embassy security report 14 years ago. Clearly, the United States has devoted inadequate resources and placed too low a priority on security concerns. And I regret to say, the President's response to the Crowe Report simply is not adequate. The Administration has asked the Congress to provide for an advance appropriation of $3 billion with no strings attached. That funding does not start next year, it starts in 2001. And the bulk of the money is proposed in the out years. Those kind of budget games shouldn't be played when the lives of U.S. government workers are at stake. It's wrong to state that embassy construction is a priority, while refusing to make funds available for that purpose. As Chairman of the International Operations Subcommittee, which has oversight responsibilities for embassy security issues, I have looked into the mistakes that we made in the past, and I am committed to making sure they do not happen in the future. Our embassies are not vulnerable because we lack security requirements. They are vulnerable because over three-quarters of our embassies have those requirements waived. Now, I understand that when the Inman security standards were put forward in the 1980's, a number of existing embassies did not meet the criteria. But I was surprised to find many of the embassies built and purchased since that time do not meet the Inman standards either. While I do not want to micromanage the State Department's construction program, given State's record in this area, certain external constraints are warranted. Unfortunately, under the Administration's plan, we are doomed to repeat some of the same mistakes that were made following the Inman recommendations. The funding structure makes it impossible to achieve efficiencies in embassy construction. There is just not enough funding in the next three years to permit a single contract to design and build an embassy or a single contract to build multiple embassies in a region. Furthermore, the back loading of the funding means it could be a decade before secure embassies are up and running. Clearly, that is not acceptable. Mr. President, I am introducing a 5-year authorization bill that makes sure the money set aside for embassy construction and security is not used for other purposes. It provides $600 million a year, starting in fiscal year 2000. And the Secretary of State is going to have to certify these funds are being used to bring these embassies into compliance with specific security standards, because 14 years from now, I don't want any finger pointing. I don't want the Congress to revisit this matter and find that funds were diverted and U.S. personnel put at risk. The security requirements in my bill reflect some of the lessons that we learned from Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. While these requirements may not have prevented lives being lost in the bombings, they could prevent the loss of life in the future. For example, under my bill, the Emergency Action Plan for each mission will address threats from large vehicular bombs and transnational terrorism. And the ``Composite Threat List'' will have a section which emphasizes transnational terrorism and considers criteria such as the physical security environment, host government support, and cultural realities. Furthermore, in selecting sites for new U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad, there will be a set back requirement of 100 feet and all U.S. government agencies will have be located on the same compound. State Department guidelines currently state that ``[a]ll U.S. Government offices and activities, subject to the authority of the chief of mission, are required to be collocated in chancery office buildings or on a chancery/consulate compound.'' Unfortunately, these guidelines are often ignored. Indeed, after the August terrorist bombings, in violation of State Department guidelines, A.I.D. headquarters decided not to move its missions in Kenya and Tanzania into the more secure embassy compounds that are going to be built. A.I.D. only reversed itself after hearing from the Congress and U.S. officials in Kenya and Tanzania. Working abroad will never be risk free. But we can take a number of measures, like these, to make sure that safety is increased for U.S. government workers overseas. We can also put forward requirements to ensure we have an effective emergency response network in place to respond to a crisis should one arise. My bill requires crisis management training for State Department personnel; support for the Foreign Emergency Support Team; rapid response procedure for assistance from the Department of Defense; and off-site storage of emergency equipment and records. These are prudent steps which should be taken to ensure we have an effective crisis management system in place if our embassies are attacked in the future. My bill also calls for the Secretary of State to submit three reports to Congress. The first report would be a classified report rating our diplomatic facilities in terms of their vulnerablity to terrorist attack. The second report would be a classified review of the findings of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel which would recommend whether any U.S. missions should be closed due to high vulnerability to terrorist attacks and ways to maintain a U.S. presence if warranted. The third report would be submitted in classified and unclassified form on the projected role and function of each U.S. diplomatic facility through 2010. It would explore the potential of technology to decrease the number of U.S. personnel abroad; the balance between the cost of providing secure buildings and the benefit of a U.S. presence; the potential of regional facilities; and the upgrades necessary. Finally, my bill enables the President to award the Overseas Service Star to any member of the Foreign Service or any civilian employee of thegovernment of the United States who--after August 1, 1998--was killed or wounded while performing official duties, while on the premises of a U.S. mission abroad, or as a result of such employee's status as a U.S. government employee. These sacrifices for our nation by U.S. government workers abroad no longer should go unrecognized. Mr. President, I believe with the approach outlined in my bill we can better ensure that we are providing a safe environment for U.S. government workers abroad. We can also be confident that should another terrorist attack occur, we will be ready for the aftermath. I understand that there is a trade-off between security and accessibility. But there are obvious steps that we should be taking to provide a higher level of security in this age of transnational terrorist threats. I hope this bill will not just provide a blueprint for the steps we must take now, but guidance on how we should proceed in the future. We must acknowledge the world is changing and doing business as usual is not going to work. We need to think outside the box and explore new ways to confront new challenges. I hope the State Department sees my bill as an opportunity rather than a burden. I am committed to making sure that embassy security is treated as a priority, and this bill is a good first step.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this morning to introduce a bill dealing with the security of our embassies around the world. Mr. President, we all remember the horrible day of August 17, 1998, when U.S. embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya were destroyed by car bombs. We all mourn the passing of the 220 people who lost their lives to these heinous terrorist acts. But it is not enough to mourn. We in Congress have a separate responsibility--to conduct proper oversight to expose weaknesses in our embassy security requirements and to ensure the resources given to this Administration are being allocated in ways to maximize their effectiveness. In reviewing the conclusions of the State Department Accountability Review Boards chaired by Admiral William J. Crowe, I was disturbed to find that they are strikingly similar to those reached by the Inman Commission which issued an extensive embassy security report 14 years ago. Clearly, the United States has devoted inadequate resources and placed too low a priority on security concerns. And I regret to say, the President's response to the Crowe Report simply is not adequate. The Administration has asked the Congress to provide for an advance appropriation of $3 billion with no strings attached. That funding does not start next year, it starts in 2001. And the bulk of the money is proposed in the out years. Those kind of budget games shouldn't be played when the lives of U.S. government workers are at stake. It's wrong to state that embassy construction is a priority, while refusing to make funds available for that purpose. As Chairman of the International Operations Subcommittee, which has oversight responsibilities for embassy security issues, I have looked into the mistakes that we made in the past, and I am committed to making sure they do not happen in the future. Our embassies are not vulnerable because we lack security requirements. They are vulnerable because over three-quarters of our embassies have those requirements waived. Now, I understand that when the Inman security standards were put forward in the 1980's, a number of existing embassies did not meet the criteria. But I was surprised to find many of the embassies built and purchased since that time do not meet the Inman standards either. While I do not want to micromanage the State Department's construction program, given State's record in this area, certain external constraints are warranted. Unfortunately, under the Administration's plan, we are doomed to repeat some of the same mistakes that were made following the Inman recommendations. The funding structure makes it impossible to achieve efficiencies in embassy construction. There is just not enough funding in the next three years to permit a single contract to design and build an embassy or a single contract to build multiple embassies in a region. Furthermore, the back loading of the funding means it could be a decade before secure embassies are up and running. Clearly, that is not acceptable. Mr. President, I am introducing a 5-year authorization bill that makes sure the money set aside for embassy construction and security is not used for other purposes. It provides $600 million a year, starting in fiscal year 2000. And the Secretary of State is going to have to certify these funds are being used to bring these embassies into compliance with specific security standards, because 14 years from now, I don't want any finger pointing. I don't want the Congress to revisit this matter and find that funds were diverted and U.S. personnel put at risk. The security requirements in my bill reflect some of the lessons that we learned from Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. While these requirements may not have prevented lives being lost in the bombings, they could prevent the loss of life in the future. For example, under my bill, the Emergency Action Plan for each mission will address threats from large vehicular bombs and transnational terrorism. And the ``Composite Threat List'' will have a section which emphasizes transnational terrorism and considers criteria such as the physical security environment, host government support, and cultural realities. Furthermore, in selecting sites for new U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad, there will be a set back requirement of 100 feet and all U.S. government agencies will have be located on the same compound. State Department guidelines currently state that ``[a]ll U.S. Government offices and activities, subject to the authority of the chief of mission, are required to be collocated in chancery office buildings or on a chancery/consulate compound.'' Unfortunately, these guidelines are often ignored. Indeed, after the August terrorist bombings, in violation of State Department guidelines, A.I.D. headquarters decided not to move its missions in Kenya and Tanzania into the more secure embassy compounds that are going to be built. A.I.D. only reversed itself after hearing from the Congress and U.S. officials in Kenya and Tanzania. Working abroad will never be risk free. But we can take a number of measures, like these, to make sure that safety is increased for U.S. government workers overseas. We can also put forward requirements to ensure we have an effective emergency response network in place to respond to a crisis should one arise. My bill requires crisis management training for State Department personnel; support for the Foreign Emergency Support Team; rapid response procedure for assistance from the Department of Defense; and off-site storage of emergency equipment and records. These are prudent steps which should be taken to ensure we have an effective crisis management system in place if our embassies are attacked in the future. My bill also calls for the Secretary of State to submit three reports to Congress. The first report would be a classified report rating our diplomatic facilities in terms of their vulnerablity to terrorist attack. The second report would be a classified review of the findings of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel which would recommend whether any U.S. missions should be closed due to high vulnerability to terrorist attacks and ways to maintain a U.S. presence if warranted. The third report would be submitted in classified and unclassified form on the projected role and function of each U.S. diplomatic facility through 2010. It would explore the potential of technology to decrease the number of U.S. personnel abroad; the balance between the cost of providing secure buildings and the benefit of a U.S. presence; the potential of regional facilities; and the upgrades necessary. Finally, my bill enables the President to award the Overseas Service Star to any member of the Foreign Service or any civilian employee of thegovernment of the United States who--after August 1, 1998--was killed or wounded while performing official duties, while on the premises of a U.S. mission abroad, or as a result of such employee's status as a U.S. government employee. These sacrifices for our nation by U.S. government workers abroad no longer should go unrecognized. Mr. President, I believe with the approach outlined in my bill we can better ensure that we are providing a safe environment for U.S. government workers abroad. We can also be confident that should another terrorist attack occur, we will be ready for the aftermath. I understand that there is a trade-off between security and accessibility. But there are obvious steps that we should be taking to provide a higher level of security in this age of transnational terrorist threats. I hope this bill will not just provide a blueprint for the steps we must take now, but guidance on how we should proceed in the future. We must acknowledge the world is changing and doing business as usual is not going to work. We need to think outside the box and explore new ways to confront new challenges. I hope the State Department sees my bill as an opportunity rather than a burden. I am committed to making sure that embassy security is treated as a priority, and this bill is a good first step.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the bill managers for accommodating me--and more importantly the elderly and disabled residents of the St. Paul Public Housing Agency--by accepting an amendment I was prepared to offer which is intended to right a wrong which has been imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) upon elderly and disabled public housing residents in St. Paul, Minnesota, as well as nearly 50 other cities in America. As you may be aware, the Service Coordinator Program administered by HUD has succeeded where many Federal programs have failed. It has enabled some of our nation's most vulnerable citizens--the elderly and disabled--to live independently in public housing with dignity. Mr. President, most elderly and disabled public housing residents are not helpless individuals, but rather are people who simply need a little assistance doing the day to day tasks we all take for granted. However, without someone to help with these tasks, many of these people may be forced to move into more expensive assisted living or nursing facilities. The Service Coordinator Program provides basic support services to these residents to enable them to live independently. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, HUD has again proven its incompetence by bungling a recent round of funding of this popular and highly successful program. In a June 1998, funding announcement, HUD stated that the $6.5 million available for public housing agency service coordinators would be allocated through a lottery, but HUD also noted that expiring three year grants would be funded first before the general lottery. Unfortunately, the $6.5 million HUD set-aside was well short of the $9.9 million in applications received and rather that funding all renewals at a prorated level, HUD quietly selected some applicants through a lottery and rejected others. Although this may simply seem like an inconvenient administrative glitch, to the residents of the St. Paul public housing agency which have thrived under this program, it is devastating. That is because St. Paul PHA was one of the fifty or so PHAs which were passed over by HUD. As a result of HUD's blunder, the St. Paul public housing agency will have to release three of their service coordinators within the next month, resulting in the disruption of countless elderly and disabled residents' lives. In order to correct this problem, my amendment transfers $3.4 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development administrative expenses account to fully fund the applications which HUD rejected due to their miscalculation. I believe this amendment appropriately keeps our promise to the elderly and disabled public housing residents with the burden being borne by the agency which created the problem.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Federal Facilities Clean Water Compliance Act of 1999. I would like to thank Senator Coverdell for bringing this important legislation forward again in the 106th Congress. Quite simply, this legislation would force federal agencies to comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act--something I believe most citizens assume already takes place. Unfortunately, when Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, it left an out for federal agency compliance with the law by allowing them to claim ``sovereign immunity'' for protection against state actions or fines. So when federal agencies are not complying with provisions of the Clean Water Act, they can state in court that they are above the law. I have always believed that the government must live under the same rules that it forces everyone else to live under. Any government which attempts to subvert the law or hide from responsibility by claiming ``sovereign immunity'' from environmental protection requirements, is a government that is above the people it serves, rather than a servant of the people. This legislation would reverse that trend, and force the federal government to waive sovereign immunity when a state brings an action under the Clean Water Act. And the bill ensures that any money that state receives as a result of such an action is placed back into programs that protect the environment or defray the costs of environmental protection or enforcement. I believe it is important that federal agencies comply with the environmental standards Congress mandates everyone else must comply. By passing the legislation we are offering today, we can restore a degree of certainty to the American people and to our states and localities that their federal government is not exempt from protecting the environment and that their federal government is not above the law. That is why I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. I look forward to working with Senators Coverdell, DeWine, and Breaux over the coming weeks and months in bringing this matter before the full Senate for debate and a vote.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Federal Facilities Clean Water Compliance Act of 1999. I would like to thank Senator Coverdell for bringing this important legislation forward again in the 106th Congress. Quite simply, this legislation would force federal agencies to comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act--something I believe most citizens assume already takes place. Unfortunately, when Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, it left an out for federal agency compliance with the law by allowing them to claim ``sovereign immunity'' for protection against state actions or fines. So when federal agencies are not complying with provisions of the Clean Water Act, they can state in court that they are above the law. I have always believed that the government must live under the same rules that it forces everyone else to live under. Any government which attempts to subvert the law or hide from responsibility by claiming ``sovereign immunity'' from environmental protection requirements, is a government that is above the people it serves, rather than a servant of the people. This legislation would reverse that trend, and force the federal government to waive sovereign immunity when a state brings an action under the Clean Water Act. And the bill ensures that any money that state receives as a result of such an action is placed back into programs that protect the environment or defray the costs of environmental protection or enforcement. I believe it is important that federal agencies comply with the environmental standards Congress mandates everyone else must comply. By passing the legislation we are offering today, we can restore a degree of certainty to the American people and to our states and localities that their federal government is not exempt from protecting the environment and that their federal government is not above the law. That is why I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. I look forward to working with Senators Coverdell, DeWine, and Breaux over the coming weeks and months in bringing this matter before the full Senate for debate and a vote.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments of 1999. First, I would like to thank Senators Murkowski and Craig for once again authoring this legislation and for their combined efforts in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on matters related to nuclear waste storage. As we all know, Washington's involvement in nuclear power isn't new. Since the 1950's ``Atoms for Peace'' program, the federal government has promoted nuclear energy, in part, by promising to remove radioactive waste from power plants. Congress decisively committed the federal government to take and dispose of civilian radioactive waste beginning in 1998 through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and its amendments in 1987. These acts established the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management to conduct the program, selected Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the site to assess for the permanent disposal facility, and established fees of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour on nuclear-generated electricity, and provided that these fees would be deposited in the Nuclear Waste Fund. Furthermore, it authorized appropriations from this fund for a number of activities, including development of a nuclear waste repository. Eventually, publication of the standard contract addressed how radioactive waste would be taken, stored, and disposed of. The DOE then signed individual contracts with all civilian nuclear utilities promising to take and dispose of civilian high-level waste beginning January 31, 1998. Other administrative proceedings, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Waste Confidence Rule, told the American public that they should literally bank on the federal government's promise. Because of these promises and measures taken by the federal government, ratepayers have paid over $15 billion, including interest, into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Today, these payments continue, exceeding $1 billion annually, or $70,000 for every hour of every day of the year. Up until recently, however, the administration has acted as if there is no problem. They have maintained a hands-off approach to the issue and when they have engaged Congress on nuclear waste storage, it has only been to issue a veto threat against this legislation. As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee last year, I had the opportunity to question Secretary Richardson on nuclear waste issues during his Senate confirmation hearings. Unfortunately, his answers to my questions were generally incomplete and contained little substantive discussion on the very real problems facing our nation's utilities, states, and ratepayers. Mr. Richardson did, however, write some interesting things about nuclear power in his responses. Let me share with you a few of those responses. They read: Nuclear power is a proven means of generating electricity. When managed well, it is also a safe means of generating electricity. * * * * * It is my understanding that spent nuclear fuel has been safely transported in the United States in compliance with the regulatory requirements set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Transportation. * * * * * The widely publicized shipment last week of spent fuel from California to Idaho is proof that transportation can be done safely. The safety record of nuclear shipments would be among the issues I would focus on as Secretary of Energy. I asked Mr. Richardson to tell me who would pay the billions of dollars in damages some say the DOE will owe utilities as a result of DOE failure to remove spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. After writing about the DOE's beliefs on their level of liability, he wrote: ``I will give this issue priority attention once I am confirmed as Secretary of Energy.'' I asked Mr. Richardson if he felt the taxpayers had been treated fairly. Again, after telling me about the history of the Department's actions to avoid its responsibilities, he wrote: ``I share your interest in resolving these issues and I will continue to pursue this once I am confirmed.'' Now, Mr. President, let's look at how then-nominee Federico Pena responded to my question regarding the responsibility of the DOE to begin removing spent nuclear fuel from my state. He said in testimony before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee: . . . we will work with the Committee to address these issues within the context of the President's statement last year. So we've got a very difficult issue. I am prepared to address it. I will do that as best as I can, understanding the complexities involved. But they are all very legitimate questions and I look forward to working with you and others to try to find a solution. Does that sound familiar? I suspect Secretary O'Leary had something equally vague to say about nuclear waste storage as well. Secretary Pena, I believe, said it best when he stated, ``I will do that as best as I can, understanding the complexities involved.'' Those complexities, Mr. President, are not that complex at all. Quite simply, the President of the United States, despite the will of 307 Members of the House of Representatives and 65 Senators, last year refused to keep the DOE's promise. Now, Secretary Richardson has come before the Senate and offered a ``new'' approach to the nuclear waste storage crisis. He believes we should leave the waste at sites across the country and merely transfer title, or ownership, to the federal government. The federal government would then be responsible for the costs associated with maintaining each of the 73 interim storage sites in 34 states, including the Prairie Island facility in Minnesota. To pay for this, Secretary Richardson is suggesting we raid the Nuclear Waste Fund, which was created to pay for the removal of that same spent nuclear fuel. While I am glad to see the Administration is finally engaged in the nuclear waste debate and that Secretary Richardson has finally been allowed to address the issue before the U.S. Senate, his proposal is a ``year late and several billion dollars short.'' It does nothing to actually move the waste out of our states and into an interim storage facility. It is unclear whether his proposal would do anything to prevent the premature shutdown of nuclear facilities in states like Minnesota. And the one thing we know it will do, is take money from the Nuclear Waste Fund that was supposed to pay for the removal of spent nuclear fuel, not the indefinite continuance of a failed approach to nuclear waste management. Mr. President, I want to be very clear that I am sincere in these complaints. My concern is for the ratepayers of my state and ratepayers across the country. They have poured billions of dollars into the Nuclear Waste Fund expecting the DOE to take this waste. They have paid countless more millions paying for on-site nuclear waste storage. Effective January 31, 1998, they began paying for both of these costs simultaneously, even though no waste has been moved. When the DOE is forced to pay damages to utilities across the nation, the ratepayers and taxpayers will again pay for the follies created by the DOE. Some estimate the costs of damages to be $80 to $100 billion or more. The ratepayers will also have to pay the price of building new gas or coal-fired plants when nuclear plants must shut down. And, if the Administration gets its way, my constituents will pay again when the Kyoto Protocol takes effect in 2008--exactly the same time Minnesota will be losing 20 percent of its electricity from clean nuclear power and replacing it with fossil fuels. That is why we must move forward, pass the legislation introduced today, and send it to the President for his signature. If he refuses to sign the bill, then I believe we will be able to find those last two votes we need to override his veto and remove the cloud hanging over our nation's ratepayers. There is no scientific or technical reason why we should not move this bill forward and pass it into law. The administration has admitted nuclear waste can be transported safely. They have admitted they neglected their responsibility. They have admitted nuclear power is a proven, safe means of generating electricity. And they have admitted there is a general consensus that centralized interim storage is scientifically and technically possible and can be done safely. If you add all of these points together and hold them up against this Administration's lack of action, you can only come to one conclusion: politics has indeed won out over policy and science. Mr. President, I am proud to once again support these amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and urge my colleagues to move this bill quickly through committee and onto the Senate floor where it will once again be approved by an overwhelming majority.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments of 1999. First, I would like to thank Senators Murkowski and Craig for once again authoring this legislation and for their combined efforts in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on matters related to nuclear waste storage. As we all know, Washington's involvement in nuclear power isn't new. Since the 1950's ``Atoms for Peace'' program, the federal government has promoted nuclear energy, in part, by promising to remove radioactive waste from power plants. Congress decisively committed the federal government to take and dispose of civilian radioactive waste beginning in 1998 through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and its amendments in 1987. These acts established the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management to conduct the program, selected Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the site to assess for the permanent disposal facility, and established fees of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour on nuclear-generated electricity, and provided that these fees would be deposited in the Nuclear Waste Fund. Furthermore, it authorized appropriations from this fund for a number of activities, including development of a nuclear waste repository. Eventually, publication of the standard contract addressed how radioactive waste would be taken, stored, and disposed of. The DOE then signed individual contracts with all civilian nuclear utilities promising to take and dispose of civilian high-level waste beginning January 31, 1998. Other administrative proceedings, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Waste Confidence Rule, told the American public that they should literally bank on the federal government's promise. Because of these promises and measures taken by the federal government, ratepayers have paid over $15 billion, including interest, into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Today, these payments continue, exceeding $1 billion annually, or $70,000 for every hour of every day of the year. Up until recently, however, the administration has acted as if there is no problem. They have maintained a hands-off approach to the issue and when they have engaged Congress on nuclear waste storage, it has only been to issue a veto threat against this legislation. As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee last year, I had the opportunity to question Secretary Richardson on nuclear waste issues during his Senate confirmation hearings. Unfortunately, his answers to my questions were generally incomplete and contained little substantive discussion on the very real problems facing our nation's utilities, states, and ratepayers. Mr. Richardson did, however, write some interesting things about nuclear power in his responses. Let me share with you a few of those responses. They read: Nuclear power is a proven means of generating electricity. When managed well, it is also a safe means of generating electricity. * * * * * It is my understanding that spent nuclear fuel has been safely transported in the United States in compliance with the regulatory requirements set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Transportation. * * * * * The widely publicized shipment last week of spent fuel from California to Idaho is proof that transportation can be done safely. The safety record of nuclear shipments would be among the issues I would focus on as Secretary of Energy. I asked Mr. Richardson to tell me who would pay the billions of dollars in damages some say the DOE will owe utilities as a result of DOE failure to remove spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. After writing about the DOE's beliefs on their level of liability, he wrote: ``I will give this issue priority attention once I am confirmed as Secretary of Energy.'' I asked Mr. Richardson if he felt the taxpayers had been treated fairly. Again, after telling me about the history of the Department's actions to avoid its responsibilities, he wrote: ``I share your interest in resolving these issues and I will continue to pursue this once I am confirmed.'' Now, Mr. President, let's look at how then-nominee Federico Pena responded to my question regarding the responsibility of the DOE to begin removing spent nuclear fuel from my state. He said in testimony before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee: . . . we will work with the Committee to address these issues within the context of the President's statement last year. So we've got a very difficult issue. I am prepared to address it. I will do that as best as I can, understanding the complexities involved. But they are all very legitimate questions and I look forward to working with you and others to try to find a solution. Does that sound familiar? I suspect Secretary O'Leary had something equally vague to say about nuclear waste storage as well. Secretary Pena, I believe, said it best when he stated, ``I will do that as best as I can, understanding the complexities involved.'' Those complexities, Mr. President, are not that complex at all. Quite simply, the President of the United States, despite the will of 307 Members of the House of Representatives and 65 Senators, last year refused to keep the DOE's promise. Now, Secretary Richardson has come before the Senate and offered a ``new'' approach to the nuclear waste storage crisis. He believes we should leave the waste at sites across the country and merely transfer title, or ownership, to the federal government. The federal government would then be responsible for the costs associated with maintaining each of the 73 interim storage sites in 34 states, including the Prairie Island facility in Minnesota. To pay for this, Secretary Richardson is suggesting we raid the Nuclear Waste Fund, which was created to pay for the removal of that same spent nuclear fuel. While I am glad to see the Administration is finally engaged in the nuclear waste debate and that Secretary Richardson has finally been allowed to address the issue before the U.S. Senate, his proposal is a ``year late and several billion dollars short.'' It does nothing to actually move the waste out of our states and into an interim storage facility. It is unclear whether his proposal would do anything to prevent the premature shutdown of nuclear facilities in states like Minnesota. And the one thing we know it will do, is take money from the Nuclear Waste Fund that was supposed to pay for the removal of spent nuclear fuel, not the indefinite continuance of a failed approach to nuclear waste management. Mr. President, I want to be very clear that I am sincere in these complaints. My concern is for the ratepayers of my state and ratepayers across the country. They have poured billions of dollars into the Nuclear Waste Fund expecting the DOE to take this waste. They have paid countless more millions paying for on-site nuclear waste storage. Effective January 31, 1998, they began paying for both of these costs simultaneously, even though no waste has been moved. When the DOE is forced to pay damages to utilities across the nation, the ratepayers and taxpayers will again pay for the follies created by the DOE. Some estimate the costs of damages to be $80 to $100 billion or more. The ratepayers will also have to pay the price of building new gas or coal-fired plants when nuclear plants must shut down. And, if the Administration gets its way, my constituents will pay again when the Kyoto Protocol takes effect in 2008--exactly the same time Minnesota will be losing 20 percent of its electricity from clean nuclear power and replacing it with fossil fuels. That is why we must move forward, pass the legislation introduced today, and send it to the President for his signature. If he refuses to sign the bill, then I believe we will be able to find those last two votes we need to override his veto and remove the cloud hanging over our nation's ratepayers. There is no scientific or technical reason why we should not move this bill forward and pass it into law. The administration has admitted nuclear waste can be transported safely. They have admitted they neglected their responsibility. They have admitted nuclear power is a proven, safe means of generating electricity. And they have admitted there is a general consensus that centralized interim storage is scientifically and technically possible and can be done safely. If you add all of these points together and hold them up against this Administration's lack of action, you can only come to one conclusion: politics has indeed won out over policy and science. Mr. President, I am proud to once again support these amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and urge my colleagues to move this bill quickly through committee and onto the Senate floor where it will once again be approved by an overwhelming majority.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today the Senate debates 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 is ridiculous. Again, let's put money into the classroom instead of bureaucracy. Ed-Flex is a step toward allowing more localized decisionmaking authority--the power to decide when the Federal regulations are more troublesome and expensive than they are worth. Today, there are simply too many regulations which are despised by school administrators. Giving more decisionmaking 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 have got farm kids, suburban kids, and city kids. And 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. We have some opportunities before us to do something meaningful for our children's education. A complementary possible amendment to Ed-Flex which promotes local decisionmaking power is Senator Gorton's block grant amendment, as well as Senator Hutchinson's Dollars to the Classroom Act. Under these proposals, 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. This helps to ensure that our education dollars go to students, as opposed to bureaucrats. Similarly, Senator Coverdell's Education Savings Accounts and School Excellence Act is an important step forward in restoring decisionmaking authority to parents and families--where it is needed. The bill simply allows families to save for their children's education, without tax penalty. It would expand the college education savings accounts established in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to include primary and secondary students. It would also increase the annual contribution limit from $500 to $2,000 per child. The money could be used without tax penalty to pay for a variety of education-related expenses for students in K-12, as well as college expenses. This is a simple, straight-forward initiative for families and students. Common sense would have had us pass the Education Savings Accounts bill long ago. Unfortunately, tired, groundless attacks continue. The charge I hear most frequently is that ``education savings accounts and tax breaks for parents would shift tax dollars away from public schools.'' That is simply not the case. More education dollars under parental control would promote education by encouraging parents to save, invest in, and support programs and materials that facilitate and provide the right option for a child's education. We all want the best education available for our children, and to improve the state of American education and schools for all children. 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 are at rock bottom. It is 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 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. Today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 280, the education flexibility partnership bill. Under a previous order, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Jeffords substitute amendment at 5 p.m. this evening. Therefore, Members have until 4 p.m. today to file second-degree amendments to the Jeffords amendment. As a reminder, a second cloture motion was filed last Friday, and therefore a cloture vote will occur tomorrow unless an agreement can be reached between the two sides on how to proceed expeditiously with this bill. Mr. President, also under rule XXII, Members must file first-degree amendments today to qualify for the second cloture vote tomorrow. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I believe, under a previous order, I have control of the floor for the next 30 minutes or until 12:30.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. I also expect to be joined in a few minutes by Senator Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas and also Senator Robert Smith of New Hampshire, and I will yield time to them as they come to the floor this morning.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for joining me this morning in talking about anniversary, as he mentioned, as not really a time to celebrate but to remember. As Senator Hutchinson noted, it was he and I who, back in 1993 when we were both in the House, worked to enact the $500-per-child tax credit. We first introduced it in 1993, and finally got it signed into law in 1997. Today it makes up about 75 or 80 percent of all tax relief this Congress has enacted in 4 years. It is just a small start, I think, of what we really need to do as far as reform and additional tax relief. I thank him for his help and all his support in getting it passed. Again, I will just remind people why we are here talking about this. It was in 1913, 86 years ago today, that the first income tax was levied in this country, despite provisions laid out in the Constitution against that. It was passed in 1913. At that time it was only, as Senator Hutchinson said, a minor tax. Only about 1 percent of the people in this country came under this income tax provision. The first Tax Code was only 14 pages long. Today, as we know, it is well over 10,000 pages, so complicated that even the most sophisticated tax lawyers cannot figure it out. As the Senator from Arkansas mentioned, if one calls the IRS for information or a question, they have about a 50/50 chance of getting a correct answer. What we have is a Tax Code, a tax system that is so complex, so abusive that it is no longer efficient. To try and make even some minor reforms or adjustments to it, I always say, is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. We cannot make it pretty. The thing we need to do is change it completely. We have talked about pulling it out by the roots and replacing it. The Senator from Arkansas will be introducing the Tax Code Elimination Act which would sunset the current Tax Code as we know it and the IRS by January 1 of the year 2003. Some people may say that is a little irresponsible because we don't have a Tax Code system with which to replace it. We have many ideas. I will be introducing a fair tax plan that would be basically a national sales tax plan. It would eliminate all the payroll, the income tax, the estate tax, the corporate taxes, capital gains tax. It would basically eliminate all of those and replace them with one simple tax at the point of sale, a consumption tax. One would never have to file a tax return again. We wouldn't consume those billions of dollars worth of hours it takes just to comply with the IRS regulations. When people say we are irresponsible because we should have a Tax Code in place before we repeal the code, I always say that Congress loves to spend so much that it would not go 1 day without the ability to tax. If we can eliminate the Tax Code, Congress will work overtime to get a new Tax Code in place. I think it is something we need to start doing and working on today. Our income tax now has generated not the 1 percent of taxpayers, but over 21 percent of this Nation's income now goes to taxes. As I referred to earlier, the Boston Tea Party was over one-half of 1 percent. Taxation without representation led to the tax revolt which built this country. Yet today, we are taxed at these high rates. I see my colleague from New Hampshire is here. I would like to recognize him for any time remaining.

Mr. GRAMS. I wanted to take a few moments this morning to talk a little bit about birthdays and anniversaries. As we know, basically they are happy remembrances of events we should celebrate. Eighty-six years ago today, the Internal Revenue Service began to levy and collect a personal income tax on the American people. I believe this is nothing to celebrate. To borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan, you will excuse the taxpayers if they don't celebrate the daily mugging that we call the Tax Code. As we note the sad occasion, I rise to call upon Congress to take immediate action to end the Federal Tax Code as we know it and replace it with a new system that is fairer, simpler, and friendlier to the taxpayers. I also call upon Congress to take immediate action to reduce the ever-increasing tax burden by providing meaningful tax relief for every working American. Now, that, Mr. President, would be something to celebrate. This great Nation was born out of a tax revolt. The revolt didn't come about because our Founding Fathers were selfish but because they didn't want to be shackled by Government regulations, intrusive bureaucracies, abusive taxing powers, and the unjust policies of their homeland. They didn't want to send their hard-earned money to an English Parliament that wasted every penny of it without any respect for those who earned it. The Boston Tea Party was the result of a one-half of 1 percent tax that was levied on the Colonies. Put that in terms of today's tax burden. This tax revolt was about freedom; it was about liberty; it was about a person being able to own more of the fruits of his labor rather than being strangled by the albatross of taxation. Our Founding Fathers understood well that low taxes and freedom were directly related. To protect individual liberty from future abuses, they crafted clause 4 of article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, that is, rejecting all direct income taxes that were not appropriated by each State by its population. This clause, as originally adopted in the Constitution, reflected the genius, the wisdom, and the experience of our Founding Fathers-- protecting individual liberty by limiting the Government's power to tax. For more than 100 years following the founding of this Nation, the American people enjoyed tax freedom and did not pay any income taxes. The Supreme Court defended this freedom and held the income tax to be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, under the direct influence of the rise of socialism in Europe at that time, on February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment to the Constitution was ratified, giving the Government unlimited power to tax. And then on March 8, 1913, the IRS began collecting personal income tax. The ratification of the 16th amendment and the enactment of the first Tax Code fundamentally eroded our individual liberty. Initially, less than 1 percent of all Americans paid any kind of income tax. Only 5 percent of Americans paid any income tax as late as 1939 before the beginning of World War II. Times, as we know, have changed dramatically. Today, the Federal tax burden is at a historic high. Federal taxes now consume nearly 21 percent of national income. A typical American family pays $9,000 a year in Federal tax. A median-income family can expect to give up nearly 40 percent of all of its income in Federal, State and local taxes. And that is more than it spends on food, clothing, transportation and housing combined. Mr. President, every year the tax system pushes more and more Americans into higher and higher tax brackets, and that is to meet the demands of ever-increasing Government spending. It is an old saying, but it has never been more true, that ``Government is an endless pursuit of new ways to tax.'' The tax system has created a monstrous bureaucracy--the intrusive, abusive Internal Revenue Service. More than $7 billion in taxpayers' money annually goes to support the operations of the Internal Revenue Service. Those dollars have built a tax system that is extremely complicated and difficult for anyone to try to understand. The Tax Code originally was only 14 pages when it was first enacted, but today it has grown to more than 10,000 pages. And it costs hundreds of billions of dollars for taxpayers to comply with its dizzying requirements. There is a growing national consensus that the current Tax Code is antifamily, it is antieconomic growth, it is unfair, it encourages abuse, waste and corruption, and it needs to be terminated. I thank my colleague from Arkansas, who plans on introducing legislation--he did introduce legislation last year--that would do just that, that is, eliminate the Tax Code as we know it. I was proud to join him as an original cosponsor, and I look forward to supporting his efforts once again this year. The next question to answer is, How will we replace the Tax Code since there is a need for Federal revenues to fund defense and foreign policy needs as well as some Federal programs? Mr. President, I have been exploring alternative tax systems for quite a while. After considerable study of the issue, I believe the national sales tax plan that has been developed by Americans for Fair Taxation is the best replacement for the Tax Code. Any new tax system must restore our fundamental principles of low taxes and limited taxing power. It must fairly and efficiently distribute the burden of funding our Government, promote economic growth, simplify compliance, and offer every American better economic opportunity. The Fair Tax system, which I intend to introduce soon, meets these important criteria. It is a fairer, simpler, friendlier tax system. It will increase economic growth, investment, capital formation, and the creation of jobs and savings. Under the Fair Tax system, working Americans keep 100 percent of their pay, 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--or dying, for that matter. Everyone pays the same tax rate without loopholes for special interest groups. There will not be any hidden taxes and everyone will easily understand the tax and how much tax they are paying. And finally--the good news--it will abolish the IRS. Mr. President, does this sound too good to be true? It may sound that way, but believe me, it is real. Let me briefly highlight how my Fair Tax legislation will achieve this. First, the legislation will call for the repeal of the Constitutional Amendment that created the tax nightmare we find ourselves in today. As I noted earlier, the 16th Amendment is the root of all tax evil. It abandons our Founding Fathers' core principle by giving the Government unlimited power to tax the private income of the American people. Without repeal of this Amendment, any tax system will eventually erode into the very system we have today. Second, the legislation will repeal the income tax, the payroll tax, the estate tax, the gift tax, the capital gains tax, the self- employment tax, and the corporate tax. Third, the legislation will impose a single rate on all new goods and services at the point of final purchase for consumption, and it provides a universal rebate in an amount equal to the sales tax paid on essential goods and services, to help lower-income individuals. Every American will be better off under the Fair Tax system than they are under the system that today holds them captive. I believe it will create expanded economic opportunities for our Nation and for our people. I realize it will take some time to pass tax reform, so in the meantime, I strongly support reducing the tax burdens of overtaxed Americans. The American people have good reason to ask for a tax cut. Since 1993, Federal taxes have increased by 50 percent. They have grown twice as much as Government spending and as a result, Americans today have the largest tax burden since World War II, and it is still growing. What is most devastating is the ``middle-class tax squeeze.'' More and more middle-income workers are being thrown into higher tax brackets. There is no excuse to continue taxing middle-income Americans at such a high rate in an era of budget surpluses. More Americans are working harder and are earning more today. But a large share of the higher incomes of hard-working Americans are not being spent on their families' priorities, but are instead being siphoned off by Washington. This is not fair. People work hard and are then penalized for their work. With punitive taxes, Washington makes the American dream of working hard for a better life more difficult to achieve for many--and impossible for some. That is why Congress needs to take immediate action to provide meaningful tax relief for all working Americans. Our exceptionally strong economy will generate an enormous non-Social Security surplus over the next 10 years. This surplus enables us to provide a broad-based tax cut for overtaxed Americans--again, without new red ink, and without spending any of the Social Security surplus. The surplus will also allow Congress to retire some of the national debt every year. If we do not return the surplus to the taxpayers, Washington will spend every penny of it to expand the Government. In addition, broad-based tax relief is an insurance policy for the American economy, helping to keep it strong and healthy. Most economists, including Chairman Greenspan, agree that an across- the-board tax cut is good for America. I will be addressing S. 3, my 10 percent across-the-board tax cut legislation, later this week in more detail. Today, I want to remind my colleagues about the anniversary of the income tax and the hardship the Tax Code has placed on our people-- again, an anniversary I do not think worth celebrating. So, I urge my colleagues to join me in a pledge that we will not let another anniversary come and go before we dedicate ourselves to replacing the Tax Code with a better system, and at the same time do everything we can to reduce the existing tax burden on the overtaxed American people. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Arkansas is on the floor. I would like to yield to him, Senator Hutchinson.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for talking about the creative ways of taxing. This Congress has been so creative in figuring out new ways to tax; I hope we can be creative in figuring out ways to get rid of the tax. Mr. President, I know we are out of time. I thank you very much. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I am submitting a Senate Concurrent Resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that guaranty fees charged by the Government National Mortgage Association--or Ginnie Mae--should not be increased as a means of offsetting additional Federal spending. I am pleased that my colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton, is joining me in submitting this resolution. As the Federal budget process proceeds over the next few months, there will inevitably be attempts to manipulate revenues to fund pet projects. Unfortunately, what Washington calls revenues, Americans call taxes. This resolution serves notice that taxes on American homebuyers--in this case through higher fees on the securities used to fund the loans--should not be used to fund general government. I am pleased that a companion resolution--H. Con. Res. 10--has been introduced in the House. I urge my colleagues to join in expressing their sense that increased taxes on homebuyers to fund general government spending are inappropriate, and I invite my colleagues to add their name to this resolution.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to help increase the public's awareness of mental retardation as we focus on the needs and abilities of the nation's 7.2 million Americans with mental retardation. The Arc, the nation's largest organization of volunteer advocates for people with mental retardation, consists of more than 1,000 local and state chapters. For 21 years, the Arc has sponsored the recognition of March as National Mental Retardation Awareness Month. The Arc began in 1950 as a small army of friends and parents in Minneapolis, Minnesota came together to create the National Association of Parents and Friends of Mentally Retarded Children. From this spark in 1950, Arc members have become advocates not only for their own children, but all children and other Americans denied services and opportunities because of mental retardation. According to Arc, a person with mental retardation is one who, from childhood, develops intellectually at a below-average rate and experiences difficulty in learning, social adjustment and economic productivity. Otherwise, he or she is just like anyone else--with the same feelings, interests, goals, needs and desire for acceptance. This intellectual delay requires not only personal support, but environmental support for them to live independently. There are more than 250 causes of mental retardation. Among the most recognized are chromosomal abnormalities, such as Down syndrome, and prenatal influences, such as smoking or alcohol use by a pregnant mother, which may lead to fetal alcohol syndrome or other complications. Malnutrition, lead poisoning and other environmental problems can also lead to mental retardation in children. Experts estimate that 50% of mental retardation can be prevented if current knowledge is applied to safeguarding the health of babies and toddlers. Some of the keys are abstinence from alcohol use during pregnancy, obtaining good prenatal care, education programs for pregnant women, and the use of child seats and safety belts for children. The theme for this year's observance is the elimination of waiting lists for community-based services. In a study conducted by the Arc, more than 218,000 people were identified as waiting for placement in a community-based residential facility, a job training program, a competitive employment situation or other support. In Minnesota, over 6,600 members in fifty chapters make up the Arc network, each working to both prevent the causes of mental retardation and lessen its effects. With the guidance of the Arc, it is these local and state chapters working at the grassroots levels which have made and continue to make the greatest impact for Americans with mental retardation. Mr. President, I truly appreciate the unabated commitment to the needs and abilities of people with mental retardation the Arc has demonstrated over the years and am honored to help further public awareness.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, at the beginning of this session, I, along with Senator Roth and others, introduced S. 3, the Tax Cuts for All Americans Act, which calls for a 10 percent across-the-board tax cut on the federal income taxes of hard-working Americans. If enacted, this will be the largest middle-class tax relief since President Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. I believe this legislation is imperative for our economic security and growth in the new millennium. I will address this issue more fully later this week. But today I also rise to introduce four bills representing some other tax relief priorities on which I hope we can also focus in this Congress. These bills will help reform our tax system and will help to terminate some unfair and unjust tax provisions in the Tax Code, again, with the aim and the goal of allowing working Americans to keep a little bit more of their own money rather than sending it to Washington. Mr. President, the first bill I am introducing today, the National Tax Rebate Act, requires the Government to refund taxes collected to taxpayers when Federal revenue grows faster than the income of working Americans. The rationale for this legislation is simple: and that is, the Federal Government's taxes should not grow faster than working Americans' income. Our growing tax burden should not reduce the standard of living that we work hard to achieve. This legislation will ensure that it does not. Eighteen of the last 19 Democrat-controlled Congresses passed tax increases. President Clinton's whopping $241 billion tax increase in 1993 was the largest tax hike we have had. We had only two Federal personal income tax rates at that time. They were 15 and 28 percent, those under President Ronald Reagan. Today, after President Clinton has been in office for 6 years, we have five Federal tax brackets. The top one has reached nearly 40 percent. More hard-working, middle-income families have been pushed into higher tax brackets because of an unfair tax system. So we have gone from two brackets of 15 percent and 28 percent to now five tax brackets, the highest being nearly 40 percent. No wonder Washington's income is growing and growing much faster than the income of the taxpayers. That is one reason why we have a surplus in Washington today, because incomes have gone up for Americans, and Washington has taken a larger share of that in the form of taxes. Thanks to our exceptionally strong economy, more Americans are working today, and are earning more than ever before as a result. Government data show that real median family income is now at a near- historic high and per capita income is at a record $19,241. We should not be here penalizing those who work long and hard to achieve the American dream of higher earnings and better jobs by slapping higher taxes on them. Unfortunately, a large share of the newly earned income of hard- working Americans has not been spent on family priorities but siphoned off by Washington. The progressive Federal tax system created by Washington allows Federal Government income to grow faster by taking a larger bite from any newly earned income increases. That is because it pushes us into one of these higher tax brackets. According to Scott Hodge, a leading economist at Citizens for a Sound Economy, total personal income since 1993 has grown by an average of 5.2 percent a year, while Federal taxes have grown by 7.9 percent a year--so taxes have grown 52 percent faster than personal income growth. In fiscal year 1998 alone, federal taxes grew 70 percent faster than personal income. Mr. President, this is not justifiable. Uncle Sam's income should by no means grow faster than the income of the people who earn it. While broad-based tax relief for every American, such as S.3, would certainly correct the unfairness of the tax system, we need a mechanism that ensures Washington's income will never grow faster than the income of taxpayers. This is all my legislation does. It limits federal taxes by prohibiting the growth rate of federal revenues collected for any fiscal year from exceeding the average growth rate of personal income of working Americans. Set a guidepost. Set a marker as to how fast Washington should grow in the money it collects and spends. It requires a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate to waive this limit. Whenever Washington's tax revenues grow faster than the personal income of working Americans, an automatic national tax rebate will be triggered as a result. The federal government must refund taxpayers the excessive taxes pro rata based on liability reported on federal income tax annual returns filed in the previous tax year. The national tax rebate is not a new idea. A number of states, such as Florida and Missouri, have either statutory laws or constitutional amendments requiring state governments to give back tax money if the revenue exceeds these limits. My own State of Minnesota is currently deciding how best to refund excess tax collection to Minnesota taxpayers. If it works at the state level, there is no excuse for the federal government not to adopt a similar mechanism. By passing this simple tax limitation and rebate legislation, taxpayers will be fully protected and better represented in Washington. Mr. President, this piece of legislation would repeal taxation of our senior citizens' Social Security benefits. As you know, Mr. President, Social Security benefits were exempt from the federal income tax since the creation of the program. They were never taxed by the Federal Government. Retirement benefits shouldn't be. But as Social Security encountered a financial crisis in early 1980s, Congress began taxing Social Security benefits, and thus causing financial hardship to many seniors. The amount of taxable benefits was the lesser of one-half of Social Security cash benefits or one-half of the excess of the taxpayer's provisional income over the thresholds of $25,000 per single person and $32,000 for couples. In 1993, when President Clinton needed more money to fund his new spending programs, he increased the taxable proportion of Social Security benefits from 50 to 85 percent for Social Security recipients whose threshold incomes exceed $34,000 for singles and $44,000 for couples. These two tax increases have seriously injured a significant number of senior citizens. In fact, a quarter of recipients are affected by this provision, creating enormous financial hardship for them as well. I believe taxation on Social Security benefits is wrong and unfair because Social Security benefits are earned benefits for many senior citizens. Federal income tax is paid when Social Security contributions are made to the program. Taxing Social Security benefits is clearly double taxation. In other words, those benefits are paid when the money is put into Social Security, and now the government wants to tax them again as it takes the money out. In addition, Congress never intended to tax Social Security benefits when it first established the program. In fact, for half a century Social Security benefits were exempted from federal taxes. Millions of senior citizens who planned for their retirement based on their understanding of the Social Security law were penalized. As the tax rate continues to grow, the incomes of more and more senior citizens are falling along with their standard of living. This tax hurts seniors who choose or must work after retirement to maintain their standard of living or to pay for costly health insurance premiums, medical care, prescriptions and many other expenses which increase in retirement years. It also discourages today's workers to save and invest for the future. It won't help protect Social Security for our children and grandchildren. I believe this is not acceptable. Repealing all taxation on Social Security benefits would reverse this trend, and help responsible senior citizens. The federal government has entered into a sacred covenant with the American people to provide retirement benefits once contribution commitments are made. It is the government's contractual duty to honor that commitment. The government cannot and should not change the covenant without consent of the people whom these changes would affect.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this bill deals with a relatively smaller tax matter. This bill calls for exemption of additional charitable gambling activities from the Federal unrelated business income tax (UBIT). As you know, Mr. President, the fundamental difference between charitable gambling and regular gambling is where and how the profit is spent. Most of the income derived from charitable gambling games is spent in communities to fund charitable activities such as the Boy and Girl Scouts, Head Start, and many city and school programs that help local residents and students. In my State alone of Minnesota, more than 1,500 local charities conduct a variety of games such as bingo and pull tabs, and in doing so contribute some $75 million per year to their local communities. Beneficiaries include youth recreation and education, as well as organizations serving the sick and disabled, and many other community programs, as well. My state leads the nation in charitable non-profit gaming, but some 35 other states are involved in similar activities. In 1978, President Carter signed into law a bill that classified bingo income as related business income. As a result, this charitable game is not subject to the Federal UBIT. But the law did not include other forms of charitable gambling. Consequently, the income of these charitable gambling games is taxed under the UBIT. Taxes take a big bite out of charitable gambling income and seriously undermine the ability of nonprofit organizations to provide charitable assistance. Now, while the IRS has not collected UBIT on these charities as they anticipate Congressional action, without my legislation, the IRS could begin collections in the near future. My legislation would remove this uncertainty as charities attempt to go on with their good works. This legislation is not controversial. It should have bipartisan support. In the last Congress I introduced a similar bill with Senator Wellstone which the Senate adopted. I hope we can pass it again in the 106th Congress. The last bill I am introducing today would provide a tax incentive for small business employers to set up pension plans for their workers. Working Americans' retirement security is based on Social Security, private pensions, and personal savings. But even though Social Security is fast approaching a financial crisis, our national savings rate remains among the lowest, and many workers do not have company pension plans to help make up the Retirement Benefits. Despite recent congressional action to improve private pension plans, the complexity of qualification requirements under current law and the administrative expenses associated with setting up retirement plans, including the SIMPLE plan, remain significant impediments to widespread implementation of employer-based retirement systems, especially for small business. This is particularly true for small employers with less than I 00 employees, for whom the resulting benefits do not outweigh the administrative costs. Consequently, only 42% of individuals employed by small businesses now participate in an employer-sponsored plan, as opposed to 78% of those who work for larger businesses. To address this problem, I am introducing the Small Employer Nest Egg Act of 1999. This legislation will create a new retirement option for small business owners with 100 or fewer employees. It would allow the same level of benefits both to employers and employees as larger employers who maintain traditional qualified plans. Upon retirement or separation of service, employees would receive I00% of their pension account value. To offset the high costs associated with starting a pension plan, my proposal calls for a tax cut equal to 50% of the administrative and retirement education expenses incurred for the first five years of a plan's operation. Mr. President, small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities, providing millions of jobs nationwide. Small business owners want to help their employees save for their retirement. Yet, because of the costs, many are unable to do so and, also, because of the rigid Government policies and, again, the administrative costs that go with it. This legislation, I believe, will help millions of workers begin building their retirement security. I urge the support of my colleagues for the four bills I have offered today.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to those men and women who have made the world we live in a better place through their advances in engineering. February 21-27 is the 49th annual observance of National Engineers Week to increase public awareness and appreciation of the engineering profession and of technology. Thousands of engineers, engineering students, teachers, and leaders in government and business participate each year. Engineering is so intertwined in our everyday activity that it can often be taken for granted. The National Society of Professional Engineers and a consortium of more than 100 engineering, scientific and education societies and major corporations are working to increase the public's awareness during this week. This year's theme, ``Engineers: Turning Ideas into Reality,'' will focus on participants interesting with children from elementary to high school through demonstrations and question and answer sessions. Seventh and eighth-grade students are invited to design future cities and build three-dimensional scale models with the help of their teachers and volunteer-engineer mentors. The National Engineering Design Challenge will team up high school students to design, build, and demonstrate a working model of a new product. And the Discover E program will reach more than five million elementary, junior and senior high school students to help them discover how engineering is applied in math, science and technology. Over 40,000 engineers nationwide will work with these students through hands-on activities in the classroom. In Minnesota, ``Discover E! in Minneapolis'' was held on February 23 with the help of engineering students from the University of Minnesota and engineers from local businesses visiting 5th and 6th graders. The students were able to explore mechanical, biomedical, and environmental engineering through demonstrations and discussions about work and studies. This week honors the birthday of one of the nation's first engineers, a surveyor named George Washington. It also recognizes the countless other engineers who have influenced nearly every aspect of our lives with their dedicated work and numerous technological advances. Their contributions to science include discoveries, for example, that have resulted in the development of ultra-lite materials such as Kevlar, and environmentally beneficial technologies such as a wastewater treatment system that effectively recycles 100% of all wastewater. Schools have focused their teachings on the body of scientific knowledge, often times neglecting the process of discovery that engineers use to help create the new advances for our modern world. With the support of groups such as NASA and Minnesota-based 3M, programs during Engineers Week will integrate this process of discovery and the use of technology into mathematics, science, language arts, and other topics. I am a strong supporter of exposing our children to the world around them and hope this awareness will get them involved and spark interest in the future of engineering.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this bill deals with a relatively smaller tax matter. This bill calls for exemption of additional charitable gambling activities from the Federal unrelated business income tax (UBIT). As you know, Mr. President, the fundamental difference between charitable gambling and regular gambling is where and how the profit is spent. Most of the income derived from charitable gambling games is spent in communities to fund charitable activities such as the Boy and Girl Scouts, Head Start, and many city and school programs that help local residents and students. In my State alone of Minnesota, more than 1,500 local charities conduct a variety of games such as bingo and pull tabs, and in doing so contribute some $75 million per year to their local communities. Beneficiaries include youth recreation and education, as well as organizations serving the sick and disabled, and many other community programs, as well. My state leads the nation in charitable non-profit gaming, but some 35 other states are involved in similar activities. In 1978, President Carter signed into law a bill that classified bingo income as related business income. As a result, this charitable game is not subject to the Federal UBIT. But the law did not include other forms of charitable gambling. Consequently, the income of these charitable gambling games is taxed under the UBIT. Taxes take a big bite out of charitable gambling income and seriously undermine the ability of nonprofit organizations to provide charitable assistance. Now, while the IRS has not collected UBIT on these charities as they anticipate Congressional action, without my legislation, the IRS could begin collections in the near future. My legislation would remove this uncertainty as charities attempt to go on with their good works. This legislation is not controversial. It should have bipartisan support. In the last Congress I introduced a similar bill with Senator Wellstone which the Senate adopted. I hope we can pass it again in the 106th Congress. The last bill I am introducing today would provide a tax incentive for small business employers to set up pension plans for their workers. Working Americans' retirement security is based on Social Security, private pensions, and personal savings. But even though Social Security is fast approaching a financial crisis, our national savings rate remains among the lowest, and many workers do not have company pension plans to help make up the Retirement Benefits. Despite recent congressional action to improve private pension plans, the complexity of qualification requirements under current law and the administrative expenses associated with setting up retirement plans, including the SIMPLE plan, remain significant impediments to widespread implementation of employer-based retirement systems, especially for small business. This is particularly true for small employers with less than I 00 employees, for whom the resulting benefits do not outweigh the administrative costs. Consequently, only 42% of individuals employed by small businesses now participate in an employer-sponsored plan, as opposed to 78% of those who work for larger businesses. To address this problem, I am introducing the Small Employer Nest Egg Act of 1999. This legislation will create a new retirement option for small business owners with 100 or fewer employees. It would allow the same level of benefits both to employers and employees as larger employers who maintain traditional qualified plans. Upon retirement or separation of service, employees would receive I00% of their pension account value. To offset the high costs associated with starting a pension plan, my proposal calls for a tax cut equal to 50% of the administrative and retirement education expenses incurred for the first five years of a plan's operation. Mr. President, small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities, providing millions of jobs nationwide. Small business owners want to help their employees save for their retirement. Yet, because of the costs, many are unable to do so and, also, because of the rigid Government policies and, again, the administrative costs that go with it. This legislation, I believe, will help millions of workers begin building their retirement security. I urge the support of my colleagues for the four bills I have offered today.