Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday, March 2, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved.

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.

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. GRAMS. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, the Senate will not be in session on Friday and will be in a pro forma session on Monday. The Senate will then reconvene on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. and will begin consideration of S. 314, a bill providing small business loans regarding the year 2000 computer problems. There will be 1 hour for debate on the bill, equally divided between Senators Bond and Kerry of Massachusetts, with no amendments in order, to be followed by a vote on passage of the bill at 10:30 a.m. Following that vote, the Senate will recess to allow Members to attend the confidential hearing regarding the Y2K issue in room S-407 of the Capitol. The Senate will recess for the policy luncheons between the hours of 12:30 and 2:15 p.m. and, upon reconvening at 2:15, will begin consideration of S. Res. 7, a resolution to fund the special committee dealing with the Y2K issue. There will be 3 hours for debate on the resolution, with no amendments or motions in order. A vote will occur on adoption of the resolution upon the expiration or yielding back of time, or at approximately 5:15 p.m.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wish that I could say that Congress and the President of the United States are doing everything possible to protect the American people and preserve the values that we hold dear. But that is not the case. At this time, the United States is defenseless against a ballistic missile attack. Clearly, that is an unacceptable state of affairs. Recent events demand the United States move forward and deploy, as soon as technologically possible, an effective National Missile Defense (NMD) system which can defend U.S. territory against any limited ballistic missile attack, whether from an accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate launch. It is my sincere hope that President Clinton's recent decision to request $6.6 billion over 6 years for missile defense research in his budget reflects a new commitment to deploy the most extensive, effective national missile defense system in the shortest amount of time. I am pleased the President finally understands the need for a missile defense system and hope he will continue that commitment. Any President sworn to protect our Nation must support the deployment of a system that would protect Americans from annihilation. We know that the threat of a missile attack is growing stronger as more emerging powers, such as North Korea and Iran are developing long- range ballistic missiles that could reach the United States. As recent events have shown, we cannot rely on the intelligence estimates this administration has been using as a security blanket. Remember, our intelligence community projected that Iran could not field its medium- range ballistic missile (the 800-940 mile range Shahab-3) until 2003, but Iran flight-tested this system 6 months ago. We were also surprised by North Korea's test firing of a two-stage missile over Japan last August. It is simply not reasonable to assume that the United States will get 3 years' advance warning, thus allowing 3 years to deploy a limited defense under the Clinton administration's ``3+3 deployment readiness program.'' As the congressionally mandated bipartisan Rumsfeld commission noted, Iran has acquired and is seeking advanced missile components that can be combined to produce ballistic missiles with sufficient range to strike all the way to St. Paul, Minnesota. As the Senator from Minnesota, I must say that I take that threat to heart. In addition, North Korea is close to testing a new missile that will have sufficient range to strike the continental United States. When that occurs, the threat to the United States could increase exponentially, because North Korea has announced that it had and would continue to sell ballistic missiles and production technology to any interested buyer. We live in a very dangerous world that is growing more and more volatile--a world where rogue regimes and terrorist groups are developing and purchasing the means to attack our Nation. We have to make a choice. We can rely on leaders like Saddam Hussein to show restraint, which seems unlikely--or we can develop a national missile defense that will provide the United States with means to counter a ballistic missile attack. America can no longer afford to hide behind the outdated ABM Treaty. It does not offer any protection from the threats emerging at the end of this century. It was negotiated and ratified to address the cold war era when the Soviet Union was our major threat. At present, rogue states consider ballistic missiles valuable instruments to intimidate countries that are unable or unwilling to defend themselves. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who supports a strong leadership role for the United States in the global arena, I am concerned that the U.S. vulnerability to missile attack could undermine our Nation's capacity to defend our national security interests abroad. For the sake of our Nation's security, I hope this administration will move forward to embrace the most effective national defense system possible. The future of our great nation literally depends on it.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the brave men and women who risked their lives fighting in the Persian Gulf War. February 27 marks the eighth anniversary of the end of the Persian Gulf War and the liberation of Kuwait. After seven months of Iraqi occupation resulting in a six-week war, and cumulating in 100 hours of land attacks, Iraq was forced to withdraw from Kuwait. When it was all over, 697,000 U.S. troops had been deployed to the area and had helped gain freedom for the Kuwaitis. We honor the courageous men and women who fought in the war and especially those who lost their lives while fighting to protect the ideals America stands for; that is, freedom and liberty for all. As Americans, we enjoy many freedoms. When our Forefathers declared independence from Britain, they cited the ``right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'' as the rights of all citizens. These inalienable rights cannot be taken away by anyone. After America won its independence and had drafted a constitution, a section was added to secure certain rights of all Americans. This addendum was called the Bill of Rights, and it ensures all citizens freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Unfortunately, we sometimes take these freedoms for granted and forget that not all people around the world enjoy the same inalienable rights that we do, nor can they protect themselves from aggressors who threaten to take away their liberty. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he took away their freedom and threatened to oppress the people. As a promotor of freedom and liberty, the United States stepped in to defend the rights of Kuwaitis. Although war is a grave option, all people deserve the chance to live without oppression. Before turning to war, our first move is to find a solution peacefully through negotiations. Yet, sometimes this option fails. As much as we want to achieve world peace through diplomatic means, the unfortunate reality is that sometimes we face many complicated international problems, which must be dealt with in other ways. Because of the actions of Saddam Hussein, the Persian Gulf War was unavoidable. The U.S. Armed Forces came together with our Allies to fight for the rights of the people of Kuwait. We should be proud of the heroic men and women, including the members of the Minnesota Reserve and Guard, who fought for the freedom of others. These men and women put their lives on the line without hesitation. Mr. President, eight years ago, American soldiers bravely won freedom for a small country in the Middle East. I am honored today to pay tribute to these courageous men and women who fought in the Persian Gulf War.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Despite the handicaps placed upon the House managers, I feel they did an excellent job in presenting their case in support of the articles of impeachment and laying out the facts. I listened to them carefully, as I listened to the White House Counsel and the President's lawyers in their vigorous defense of William Jefferson Clinton. I have heard some of my colleagues say that it was one particular fact or incident that led them to their conclusion. That was not the case with me. I needed to listen to all the facts throughout the trial, before I truly could decide how I would vote. But after carefully weighing all the evidence, all of the facts, and all the arguments, I have come to the conclusion--the same conclusion reached by 84% of the American public--that President Clinton committed perjury and wove a cloth of obstruction of justice. Lead presidential counsel Charles Ruff said in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, and here during the Senate trial, that fair- minded people could draw different conclusions on the charges. I disagree in one aspect, but agree in another. I personally feel there is no room to disagree on whether the President is guilty of the charges in both Article One and Article Two; he committed perjury and he clearly obstructed justice. But I agree we will differ on whether these charges rise to the level of high crimes which dictate conviction. Again, I believe they do and have voted yes, on both articles. The President was invited by letter to come and testify before the Senate. As the central figure in this trial, he alone knows what happened, and if truthful, he could have addressed the compelling evidence against him. He refused. It has been said that many have risked their political futures during this process. Perhaps--yet I will not hesitate telling constituents in my state how and why I voted the way I did. With a clear conscience, I will stand in their judgment and I will live with and respect whatever their decision on my political future may be. But remember, those who vote to acquit--that is, to not remove this President--will have the rest of their political lifetimes to explain their votes. They also will be judged. Collectively too, we will have to await what history will say about this trial and how it was handled. Will this Senate be judged as having followed the rule of law; that is, deciding this case on the facts, or will we be remembered as the rule-making body who deferred to public sentiment? The polls say this President is too popular to remove. If we base our decision on his popularity rather than the rule of law, we would be condoning a society where a majority could impose injustice on a minority group, only because it has a larger voice. A rule of law is followed so that justice is done and our Constitution is respected, regardless of popularity polls. The foundation of our legal system, I believe, is at risk, if the Senate ignores these charges. The constitutional language of impeachment for judges is the same as for the President. Judges are removed from the bench for committing perjury, and also face criminal charges, as do ordinary citizens. We must not accept double standards. The prospect of such a double standard was raised countless times by the House managers. Consider the irony created by a two-tiered standard for perjury. A President commits perjury, yet remains in office. But would a cabinet member who committed perjury be allowed to keep his or her job? Would a military officer who committed perjury be allowed to continue to serve? Would a judge who committed perjury remain on the bench? They would not, and yet our President, the nation's chief law enforcement officer, is allowed to keep his office after having committed the same offense. Again, in my view, this is a double standard and is completely unacceptable for a nation that prides itself on a legal system which provides equal justice under the law. As to our final duty, the final vote, I believe the so-called ``so what'' defense has controlled the outcome. ``He did it, but so what'' we have heard it a thousand times from a hundred talking heads. We have heard it from our colleagues, too, in both chambers. Well, for this Senator, ``so what'' stops at perjury and obstruction of justice. I will cast my vote with sorrow for the President, his family, and for the toll this trial has taken on the nation, but with certainty that it is the only choice my conscience and the Constitution permits me to make.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator. I appreciate the Senator from Georgia putting this effort together. I think it gets the information out about what this budget really does and does not entail. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few observations about the President's millennium budget. After a brief review, my conclusion is this: First, in his quest to continue to offer something for everyone, the President's budget offers a lot of smoke and mirrors and a lot of accounting gimmicks. Secondly, this budget is chock full of new spending, earmarks, and dozens of new ways for Washington to spend the tax dollars earned by working Americans. It is a blueprint for an even bigger federal government. Thirdly, while I agree that the 62 percent of the projected surplus that belongs to Social Security should be reserved for Social Security, I do not agree with what the President seeks to do with the 38 percent of the surplus that represents tax overpayments. He chooses to spend the vast majority of it and leaves only pennies on the dollar for very minor, tightly targeted tax relief plan that he was offered in the budget. His plan is basically only token tax cuts that sound big, but the bottom line is it provides little or no tax relief. Fourth, he proposes new taxes and user fees and takes tobacco settlement money from the states. Can you believe it--in times of surplus, he actually proposes to raise taxes even higher, and his budget spends the Social Security surplus he claims to wall off. Finally, the President's budget does not save Social Security from bankruptcy. Let me be a little more specific. You don't have to look further than the way in which the President's budget deals with spending caps to determine if this is an honest budget. As you know, President Clinton has repeatedly broken the statutory spending caps in the past to spend more for new and expanded government programs. Last year alone, the President and the Congress spent over $22 billion of the surplus for alleged ``emergency spending'' in the Omnibus spending legislation. Nearly $9.3 billion in regular appropriations was shifted into future budgets. In my judgment, both of these efforts broke the caps, and that is why I opposed the Omnibus bill. Also, I wish that Congress and the President could be as creative in cutting spending and cutting taxes as the President is in finding ways to spend more money for more programs. According to the CBO, last year's budget--when alleged emergency spending is included--exceeded the spending caps by $45 billion. Even without counting the emergency spending, we still exceeded the spending caps by $29 billion. Last year's irresponsible spending has made the spending caps even tighter for this year. In order to stay within the caps as required by law, we must cut spending by $28 billion. This would require an approximately 5-percent across-the-board reduction of this year's discretionary spending. Instead of cutting spending to comply with the law, President Clinton actually proposes significant spending increases to expand many of the existing programs and create many more new programs. These spending increases total over $130 billion. Yet the President claims his budget does not break the spending caps. How can President Clinton have it both ways? How can he have his cake and eat it, too? It is simple. He does it by budget gimmicks. The President imposes new user fees and raises existing ones by $21 billion, and then counts these taxes as ``negative spending'' rather than as revenues. He also devotes presumed receipts from the state settlements with the tobacco companies and a 55 cents-per-pack federal tax on cigarettes to a variety of programs to avoid the spending caps. However, it is far from certain these taxes will be accepted by Congress, so what we have is new spending without reasonable offsets. The President also reclassifies the increased discretionary spending for expanded military retirement benefits, again, as mandatory spending. In addition, President Clinton speeds up the FCC's collection of spectrum auction payments. Like last year, the President has again shifted some program funding--such as the Northeast multispecies fishery--into so-called ``emergency spending'' to further bust the budget. And he has severely under-funded some major programs such as Medicare, knowing Congress will restore the funds. These decisions by the President are troubling. The more I review this budget, the more questions I have about how the President can propose so much new spending and claim that he will not break the budget. President Clinton proposes to funnel 62 percent of the projected budget surplus which represents the Social Security surplus to the Social Security Trust Funds, 15 percent to Medicare, 12 percent to the so-called Universal Saving Accounts, and another 11 percent to increase other government spending. The OMB estimates that we would have a $12 billion on-budget deficit--that is without. Social Security excess Surpluses--in FY 2000. This means we don't have any on-budget surplus to spend this year. All of the $117 billion unified budget surplus is, in fact, Social Security surplus. I don't know how I can say this more clearly. Despite the President's promise to save Social Security first, he is proposing to spend all of the Social Security surplus. Moreover, not only has the President manipulated the numbers, but he has also included enormous increases in existing programs and created many new programs, including entitlement programs. Without counting government user fees, the actual size of the government has reached $2 trillion, not $1.8 trillion, as the President claimed in his budget. I am sure there is much more hidden spending and hidden taxes in this 2,600 page budget. With all of these spending and tax increases, President Clinton fails to provide any meaningful tax relief for working Americans. His targeted tax cuts reward only a few, with too few dollars. And again, in times of surplus, the President is proposing to raise taxes. Now, I would like to just show a little cartoon that I brought with me that I think kind of explains this. As the cartoon suggests, President Clinton doesn't want to give any of the non-Social Security surplus to hard-working, overtaxed Americans because he believes he can spend it better on his own priorities. As the cartoon says: It seems we have grossly overcharged you, so let me explain how we intend to spend the money. When you go to a restaurant and overpay the bill, you expect to get the change back. Here the taxpayers have overpaid, and I think they can rightfully expect that they should get the change back and the surplus should go to the taxpayers and not to the bureaucracies in Washington. In fact, satisfying the President's spending appetite would squeeze an additional $80 billion from working Americans as tax increases. So, in times of surpluses, tax increases. Mr. President, Americans today are taxed at the highest level in history, with nearly 40 percent of a typical family budget going to pay taxes on the Federal, State, and local level. They tax it when you earn it. Tax it again when you save it. Tax it again when you spend it. Tax it again when you invest it. And tax it yet again when you die. No wonder Americans feel overtaxed! But under the President's budget, the Government will collect more taxes from working Americans in the next five years. Total taxes will reach over $10 trillion. Federal tax revenues will grow faster than spending, consuming 20.7 percent of GDP, a historic high since World War II. This is wrong. More spending and more Government is not the answer. The answer lies in tax cuts that return power to the taxpayers and leave a little more of their own money in their pocket at the end of the day. That is why I, along with Senator Roth, introduced S. 3, the Tax Cuts for All Americans Act, the one bill that will do the most to help America's working families. Our plan will cut the personal tax rate for each American by ten percent across the board. The broad-based tax cut is simple and fair. It is pro-family and pro- growth. If President Clinton wanted to make a strong statement for working Americans, he should have made this broad-based tax cut the centerpiece of his budget. My last point is that despite his claim to have made Social Security solvent, and despite the fact that he will pour general funds into Social Security, Mr. Clinton's budget does not and will not save it. This budget does nothing to address its long-term unfunded liabilities. In what Chairman Greenspan has called a very ``dangerous'' approach, it has the Government invest any surpluses in the stock market for Social Security. In my home state of Minnesota, taxpayers are already expressing their frustration with the notion that, in the case of retirement security, Washington knows best. Let me quote one thing here. Patrick Garofalo of Apple Valley wrote the following letter in yesterday's St. Paul Pioneer Press: I am a big boy. I no longer live with my parents. The government trusts me to own a gun. It trusts me to choose my state and congressional elected officials. It trusts me to make decisions about the welfare of both of my children. If it trusts me to make these important decisions, why does not it trust me to decide how I want to save for my retirement? Please don't tax me to death while you ``help'' me. Let me keep my money. I will decide where and with whom to invest my nest egg. I could not have said it better myself. Mr. President, the Administration's budget will not meet the challenges of a new millennium but rather lead us down the path of fiscal disaster. Congress can and will do better. We will produce a budget that preserves and protects the Social Security surplus; we will give the non-Social Security surplus back to taxpayers as major tax relief and debt reduction; we will have a blueprint that leads this nation into the 21st century. I appreciate the Senator from Georgia yielding me this time.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I first ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my statements the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the State and Local Government Participation Act of 1999. I would like to thank Senator Thomas for introducing this simple, but very important piece of legislation. As Senator Thomas said in his introductory remarks, this legislation would make state and county governments ``cooperating agencies'' in the National Environmental Policy Act process. For example, when the Forest Service decides to undertake a timber sale, it will have to by law consult and obtain the input of state and county governments during the NEPA process. Current law, however, only requires the federal government to consult with other federal agencies. The underlying concept of this legislation is something most people would assume already takes place. Average Americans assume that the federal government considers state and local governments partners in all land-use and environmental decisions. After all, it is an established fact that local citizens and officials can best meet local problems with local solutions. And in those matters, people expect the federal government to help out where needed and take the lead where appropriate. But average Americans, unfortunately, often aren't aware of the complete picture. Too often, the federal government adopts its ``I know best'' philosophy and ignores the input of local officials or even excludes them from the decision making process. One of the first things locally elected officials in the northern part of my state--an area which deals with the National Environmental Policy Act regularly--say to me when we sit down to talk is that the federal government doesn't care about their needs. They feel the federal government, be it the Forest Service, Park Service, or EPA, just doesn't seem to realize that counties are having a tough time making ends meet and providing basic services to its residents in an era of increased land-regulation and decreased logging, mining, and access. And when they show you the numbers and make their case, it is impossible to disagree with them. There are a number of counties in northern Minnesota which are predominantly federally owned. St. Louis County is 62 percent federally owned, Cook County is 82 percent federally owned, and Lake County is 92 percent federally owned. They are home to the Superior National Forest and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Not far away is Voyageurs National Park and not far from that is the Chippewa National Forest. Not surprisingly, they are often placed in the middle of many disputes over land-uses. They continue to see their PILT payments funded at barely 50 percent of authorized amounts. They continue to witness more and more restrictions on the use of lands within their counties and the Forest Services declining timber sales. And they continue to see their populations declining as a result of lost economic opportunities. They deserve to be heard when the federal government is going to take actions in their communities. Mr. President, it is clear that in the last half of this century power has shifted from our nation's cities and states to Washington, DC. No one disputes that. And while many of us would like to see that shift back the other way, it may take some time to get it done. But what we should all be able to agree upon, is that locally elected officials should have a seat at the table and should be treated as equals and as partners by federal agencies. They know what is happening on their land and they know the people who will be impacted by changes in the law. They also know what the impact will be on a county or state budget. But most importantly, Mr. President, county and state officials are closer to the people. Their phone numbers are actually in the phone book and they aren't a long distance call away. They answer their door when someone comes knocking. And they aren't a bureaucrat hidden away in Washington, DC, making one size fits all policy decisions. As I stated earlier, I think those people deserve a role in the NEPA process and I think the American people would agree. I urge my colleagues to protect their state and local government's right to participate by supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the second bill I am introducing with my good friend, Senator Crapo of Idaho, is lockbox legislation. Before being elected to the Senate in 1998, Mike Crapo led the fight to enact the Lock Box legislation in the House of Representatives. His version of the Lock Box legislation was passed by the House of Representatives on four different occassions, both as a free standing bill and as an amendment. I am pleased to have Senator Crapo as a partner on this legislation in the Senate. Mr. President, our short-term fiscal situation has improved greatly due to the continued growth of our economy. It is reported that we may end up with a unified budget surplus of over $80 billion this year and a $4.5 trillion surplus in the next 15 years. Of course, tax dollars are always considered ``free money'' by the big spenders here in Washington, and the thought of all that new ``free surplus money'' is creating a feeding frenzy on Capitol Hill. If we don't lock away this increased revenue for the taxpayers, the government will spend every penny of it. Despite the rhetoric about reserving it all for Social Security, Washington has already spent $30 billion of last year's budget surplus. We need a lockbox to dedicate any increased revenue in the future and return it to the taxpayers as tax relief, debt reduction, and Social Security reform. Since the unexpected revenue has come directly from working Americans, I believe it is only fair to return it to them. The tax burden on the American people is still historically high. It's sound policy to use our non-Social Security surplus to lower the tax burden and allow families to keep a little more of their hard-earned money. Over the past 30 years, as I mentioned, we have amassed a $5.6 trillion national debt thanks to Washington's culture of spending. A newborn child today will bear over $20,000 of that debt the moment he or she comes into the world. Each year, we sink more than $250 billion into the black hole of interest payments, which could be better spent fighting crime, maintaining roads and bridges, and equipping the military. It's sound policy to use part of any surpluses to begin paying down the national debt and reducing the financial burden on the next generations. The budget surpluses also give us a great opportunity to address our other long-term financial imbalances. Federal unfunded liabilities could eventually top $20 trillion, bankrupting our government if no real reform occurs. It's vitally important that we use the entire Social Security surplus exclusively for Social Security, and we should even use a portion of the non-Social Security surplus to finance Social Security reforms. If we don't lock in the surplus, Washington will spend all of it to expand the government. That's what they are doing now. Last month alone, President Clinton proposed 41 new programs. The spending increases he outlined could reach $300 billion a year, the highest increase proposed by any President in our history. Mr. President, we must never, never, never repeat the mistake we made in 1997 and 1998, and allow Washington take a huge bite into the taxpayers' money. We must do everything we can to ensure we reserve any increased revenue for Social Security, tax relief and debt reduction.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I have a number of bills I want to introduce today. I want to start out by talking a little bit about the three bills dealing with budget reform, and then also an important bill leading to crop insurance reform. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce these bills that would reform the Federal budget process, strengthen fiscal discipline and restore Government accountability to ensure that taxpayers are fully represented in Washington. I commend Leader Lott and Chairman Domenici for including budget process reform as one of the top five priorities in the 106th Congress. I believe this should be our immediate priority as we prepare to make our budget process work better. Mr. President, the Federal budget process has become a reckless game in which the team roster is limited to a handful of Washington politicians and technocrats while the taxpayers are relegated to the sidelines. This has not only weakened the nation's fiscal discipline but also undermined the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution. The most recent example of this abusive process was the 1998 Omnibus Appropriation legislation. The bill included $520 billion in funding for many essential Government programs, representing 8 out of Congress' 13 annual appropriations bills. But the entire negotiations were exclusive, arbitrary, and conducted behind closed doors by only a few congressional leaders and White House staff. Few Members of the Congress had any idea what was in the bill but were asked to approve it, without debate, without adequate review, without amendments, and without roll call votes. As a result, Washington broke the spending caps mandated in last year's Balanced Budget Act by spending more than $21 billion of the surplus for so-called ``emergency'' purposes. Budget negotiators magically invented a new smoke and mirrors budget term--``forward funding'' which shifted $9.3 billion into future budgets. Long-criticized ``backdoor spending'' thrived: for example, lawmakers sneaked $1 billion to fund programs to achieve initiatives under the Kyoto treaty. The White House has not sent up the Treaty and the Congress has many reservations about it. Without any policy consideration, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars went to fund such pork programs as, amazingly, caffeinated chewing gum research. The budget process is seriously flawed. Twenty-five years ago, Congress tried to change its budget practices and get spending under control by passing the Congressional Budget Act. Yet, over these 25 years, our national debt has grown from $540 billion to $5.6 trillion. Spending is at an all-time high, and so are taxes. The budget process has become so complicated that most lawmakers have a hard time understanding it. Of course, that hasn't stopped the proliferation of budget gimmicks to circumvent the intent of the Congress. Before the situation explodes completely, Congress must immediately reform the budget process to ensure the integrity of our budget and appropriations process. We can begin in the 106th Congress by taking a few simple steps. The first step is to ensure our government's continued operation without any interruption. Last week, I introduced important legislation that would continue funding for the Government at the prior year's level when Congress and the President fail to complete appropriations legislation. Mr. President, we all still have a fresh memory of the 1995 Federal Government shutdown, the longest one in history, which caused financial damage and inconvenience to millions of Americans when the President refused to support a Balanced Budget Act and tax relief for Americans. However, the most serious damage done by the 27-day shutdown was that it shook the American people's confidence in their Government and in their elected officials. I am concerned that President Clinton would use this technique again to force Congress into spending more money. I believe we can do better for the taxpayers and believe my legislation, the Good Government bill, will help to do that. In May of 1997, I first proposed this as a stand-alone vote in an effort to pass the flood relief bill for Northern Minnesota. The Senate Democratic leader agreed and supported my proposal. I was able to obtain a commitment from the Senate leadership of both parties to pursue the legislation separately in the near future. Last summer, I sought to offer it as an amendment to an appropriations bill. This amendment, originally sponsored by Senator McCain, would have created an automatic procedure for a CR at the end of each fiscal year. Unfortunately, my efforts were not successful. If I had succeeded, we would not have had to go through the debacle last year's omnibus spending bill. Mr. President, we all have different philosophies and policies on budget priorities, and of course we will not always agree. But there are essential functions and services of the Federal Government we must continue to fund regardless of our differences in budget priorities. Program funding must be based on merits, not on political leverage. This legislation would continue funding for the Federal Government at 100 percent of the previous year's level when Congress and the President fail to complete appropriations legislation at the end of any fiscal year. The virtue of this legislation is that it would allow us to debate issues concerning spending policy and the merits of budget priorities while we continue to keep essential Government functions operating. The American taxpayer will no longer be held hostage to a Government shutdown. Mr. President, there are still plenty of uncertainties involved in our budget and appropriations process, particularly this year. We must ensure that this good-government contingency plan is adopted to keep the Government up and running in the event a budget agreement is not reached. Another step we must take is to control our emergency spending. Emergency spending is spending over the budget allotment and is supposed to cover true emergencies, such as natural disaster relief. Instead, Congress and the Administration have used this as an opportunity to bust the budget for a lot of spending that is not emergency related at all. Most of this spending can be planned within our budget limits. Even natural disasters happen regularly--why not put something in our budget to pay for them? That is why I am introducing the ``Emergency Spending Control Act'' today as well. This legislation would require the President to submit a line item in his budget for natural disaster relief funding. The funding levels for this line item would be based on the average spending of the last five years on natural disaster relief. The amount in this line item would not be subject to the current spending caps. The funding of this budget line item must be used exclusively for natural disaster relief--any use for non-natural disasters is strictly prohibited. Mr. President, as a Senator whose State has been previously devastated by the 1997 flood of the Red and Minnesota Rivers, tornadoes, snow, ice and other natural disasters, I know how important enacting this legislation is not only for Minnesotans, but for all Americans. Fortunately, city mayors, the State of Minnesota, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency acted quickly in the Red River Valley, and the rebuilding process moved relatively fast. Local governments continue to work closely with my office and with State and Federal agencies to answer the many questions that still arise as people seek to rebuild their homes, their businesses, and the rest of their lives. We owe it to these Minnesotans and other Americans who have been faced with a natural disaster to require the President to submit a line item in his budget for natural disaster relief funding. Local and State officials should not be required to come to Washington and lobby for funding every time that a natural disaster occurs. We should not have to consider and pass separate ``emergency'' legislation which becomes a magnet for other so-called emergency spending. Disasters occur every year, we should budget for them. Mr. President, the second to the last bill I am introducing today is a bill to enforce and expand the statutory spending caps. Spending limits are a good tool to control spending--if the President and lawmakers stick to them. But since the establishment of statutory spending limits, Washington has repeatedly broken them. Washington set forth new spending caps in 1990 after it failed to meet its deficit reduction targets. In 1993, President Clinton broke the statutory spending caps for his new spending increases and created new caps. But in 1997, the President could not live within his own spending caps, and he broke them again. Last year, President Clinton proposed over $22 billion of so-called ``emergency spending'' in the omnibus spending legislation and again broke the caps. Again and again, Washington lowers the fiscal bar and then jumps over it at the expense of the American taxpayers. This is wrong. Mr. President. If we commit to living within the statutory spending caps, we must stick to it. We must use every tool available to enforce these spending limits. My legislation will help Congress to enforce its fiscal discipline by creating a new budget point of order to allow Congress to exceed spending limits only if two-thirds of its members vote to do so. In addition, my bill would extend the limits beyond the year 2000. Doing so will ensure that spending increases won't grow faster than the income growth of working Americans. There are many other budget process reforms I support as well, promoted by other Senators. One I would like to highlight is the biennial budget, which is proposed by our distinguished colleague, Senator Domenici. Biennial budgeting will allow us to examine our fiscal discipline as well as providing valuable time for our oversight responsibilities. If the Congress adopts each of these changes, it will ensure a budget process that serves the best interests of the nation, allows careful policy and spending deliberation, and strengthens our political institution of government through representation as established by the Constitution. Mr. President, finally I want to take a few minutes to introduce a bill which takes an important step toward improving the nation's federal crop insurance program--and that is a bill that I have introduced, the ``Crop Insurance Reform Act.'' Last year, we witnessed devastating circumstances come together to create a crisis atmosphere for many of our nation's farmers. I know that in my own state of Minnesota, multiple years of wet weather and crop disease--especially scab--coupled with rising production costs and plummeting commodity prices have devastated family farms in record numbers. With the increased opportunities that accompany Freedom to Farm come increased risks. We've seen this first hand. Freedom to Farm can work, but a necessary component of it, as I have argued repeatedly, is an adequate crop insurance program. This component has been missing so far. One of the promises made during debate of the 1996 Farm Bill was that Congress would address the need for better crop insurance. We must not let another growing season pass without having instituted a new, effective crop insurance program. This overhaul is a major undertaking, and instituting a program of comprehensive reform should be and is now a legislative priority. In fact, the President has included a number of ideas for reforming the federal crop insurance program in his recent budget proposal. Most importantly, the President has suggested increasing the federal subsidies on crop insurance premiums and eliminating disparities in subsidy rates. Essentially, this is similar to legislation I introduced last year and am introducing again today. Unfortunately, while the President claims to support crop insurance reform, he has failed to identify any money in his budget to fund it. However, now that he has recognized the urgency of the situation, I hope we can work together to accomplish meaningful reform. Furthermore, we must resume the debate now so that we can have the best system in place in time, and that we can do it in time for the year 2000 crops. The bill I am introducing today is a first step. It is the result of months of work from my Minnesota Crop Insurance Work Group. The Work Group consists of various commodity groups, farm organizations, rural lenders, and agriculture economists. We have also worked closely with USDA's Farm Service and Risk Management Agencies. But it was my primary intention to assemble a committee of farmers and lenders--people who know the situation and have seen the problems firsthand. The Crop Insurance Reform Act is designed to address the coverage decision a farmer must make at the initial stages of purchasing crop insurance. Producers have been telling us that they need better coverage, but that it is currently too expensive. My bill will allow more options for producers to choose from when making risk-management decisions. It essentially provides farmers with an enhanced coverage product at a more affordable price. Currently, producer premium subsidies range from nearly 42 percent at the 100 percent price election for 65 percent coverage, to only 13 percent at the 100 percent price election for 85 percent coverage. Although the Risk Management Agency has recently provided better product options, the relatively low subsidy levels at the higher ends of coverage make them cost prohibitive. My bill will put in place a flat subsidy level of 31 percent across the 100 percent price election and at all levels of coverage. This will adjust the producer premiums to make better coverage more affordable, thereby removing the incentive from purchasing lesser-grade coverage. The Crop Insurance Reform Act puts the focus of the coverage decision on what really matters: and that is the type of coverage which would be needed in the event of a disaster or loss, rather than simply making the decision based upon up-front costs. When farmers are armed with the necessary risk management tools, I believe everybody will save. The government saves in ad hoc disaster payments, arguably the most expensive way to address any kind of financial crisis. But more importantly, the family farmer saves. This bill is part of a continued effort to reform Federal Crop Insurance. Over the next few months, I will continue to work with my Crop Insurance Work Group, and my colleagues, Senators Lugar and Roberts, to craft a comprehensive program which directly benefits producers and also will be here to protect the taxpayers.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Taxpayer Oversight of Surplus Property Act. I am pleased that Congressman John Peterson of Pennsylvania will soon introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Among the many programs administered by hundreds of federal agencies, there are some initiatives that depend upon the active involvement of both the federal government and the states in order to ensure the wisest use of taxpayer dollars and meet the needs of the American people. One such effective partnership involves the distribution of federal surplus personal property to states and local organizations. In 1976, President Ford signed legislation which established the current system for the fair and equitable donation of federal surplus personal property. Personal property declared ``surplus'' consists of items other than land or real property, naval vessels, and records of the federal government. This includes office supplies, furniture, medical supplies, hardware, motor vehicles, boats, airplanes, and construction equipment. Under the federal personal property utilization and donation program, the General Services Administration is responsible for the transfer of federal surplus personal property to the states. Each state agency for surplus property receives the transfer of property and distributes these items to eligible recipients. Property that is not selected by the states is offered for sale to the general public. Importantly, the interests of the American taxpayers guide this entire process. Mr. President, there are close to 70,000 recipients of federal surplus property located throughout the United States. Each day, cities, counties, Indian tribes, hospitals, schools, and public safety agencies are among the public and nonprofit organizations that look toward the state agencies for surplus property to help meet their needs. Last April, I had the opportunity to visit the Minnesota surplus property agency, where I was joined by the lieutenant governor, the executive director of the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, and the commissioner of the state Department of Corrections. While there, I quickly became more familiar with the success of the donation program throughout Minnesota. I am very confident that my Senate colleagues will find that the donation program has achieved a comparable level of success in each of their states. In fiscal year 1997, the Minnesota surplus property agency donated equipment and supplies with an original federal acquisition cost of $7.7 million to 1,700 eligible recipients, saving precious tax dollars if these items had been purchased new or on the open market. I was impressed to learn that 414 cities, 80 medical institutions, 19 museums, 237 public schools, 110 county entities, 160 State agencies, and 353 townships are among the active participants in the donation program. Equally impressive is how effectively the state agencies for surplus property and the GSA have worked together to respond quickly and efficiently during times of natural disasters. Together they have successfully identified and transported sandbags, blankets, cots, tools, trucks and other items to disaster sites. I know that Minnesotans who suffered through the 1997 Midwest floods are gratified to have received over $3.7 million worth of federal surplus property to assist flood relief efforts during that horrible time. Quite simply, the donation program has provided taxpayers with the equipment, supplies and material used to educate our children, maintain roads and streets, keep utility rates reasonable, train the workers of tomorrow, protect families from crime, provide needed relief during natural disasters, and treat the health of our nation's sick and needy. In fact, the original acquisition value of property distributed through the state agencies for surplus property totaled over $1.5 billion between fiscal years 1995 through 1997. Because of the importance my constituents place upon the availability of this property, I am very concerned about current programs which limit the donation of property to the states. My concern is based in part upon comments expressed to me by constituents such as Mayor Richard Nelson of Warren, Minnesota. Mayor Nelson recently wrote, When we inquired about the shortage of heavy equipment we were told that a large majority of that equipment is shipped overseas to other countries for humanitarian aid. I feel that our taxes paid for this equipment and it seems only fair that we should have the first opportunity to benefit from it. Being the mayor of a community that has suffered from four floods within two years, I believe that we have unmet needs in this country that need to be addressed before we can look at any outside interests. Mr. President, Mayor Nelson's concerns go to the heart of the legislation that I am introducing today. I believe that the volume of distributed federal surplus property would increase if the intent of Congress when it passed the 1976 reforms was more closely followed. If Congress continues to allow surplus federal property to go abroad, or not make its way through proper channels to eligible recipients, taxpayers such as those in the community of Warren will stand to lose. As someone who has always worked to ensure the wisest possible use of taxpayer dollars, this gives me great concern. The legislation I am introducing will help to address these concerns through the following provisions. First, this measure would ensure that when distributing surplus federal personal property, domestic needs are met before we consider foreign interests. It would, however, grant the President the authority to make supplies available for humanitarian relief purposes before going to the states, in the case of emergencies or natural disasters. Under the Humanitarian Assistance Program (HAP), the Secretary of Defense is permitted to make nonlethal Department of Defense supplies available by the State Department to foreign countries as part of humanitarian relief activities. I was disturbed to learn that over $1 billion worth of excess supplies was made available to the State Department between fiscal years 1987 through 1997 before GSA had been given an opportunity to review the property and make it available for donation to the states. Mr. President, I understand that some officials may argue that the Humanitarian Assistance Program is an important part of our nation's foreign assistance efforts. Many foreign countries and organizations clearly have benefited from nonlethal Department of Defense excess property finance by American taxpayers. Although I have serious concerns about this initiative, my legislation does not eliminate the Humanitarian Assistance Program. However, I believe we must prioritize the needs of disaster victims in Minnesota, rural hospitals in Arkansas, police departments in Washington state, school districts in Idaho, homeless assistance providers in Florida, and other communities and organizations which have invested their tax dollars in government property and the donation program. For these reasons, I oppose the continued priority status granted to foreign recipients under programs such as the Humanitarian Assistance Program. Second, my bill would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to prohibit the transfer of Government-owned excess property to foreign countries or international organizations for environmental protection activities in foreign countries unless GSA determined that there is no federal or state use for the property. Third, this legislation would require GSA to report to Congress on the effectiveness of all statutes relating to the disposal and donation of personal property and recommend any changes that would further improve the Donation Program. Mr. President, my bill is based on the principle that eligible recipients should be able to maximize their tax dollars through expendable federal property that meets their needs. It takes an important step toward stopping publicly-owned property from being shipped abroad and given to other organizations before it is distributed through each state agency for surplus property. My legislation will fulfill the public's right to know how and where their tax dollars are being spent. In many ways, it will serve as the second phase of the reforms overwhelmingly passed by Congress in 1976, by preserving the active role of states in the handling and distribution of surplus federal property. Members of Congress and state and local officials all have an obligation to see that the government distributes this property fairly and equitably, ensuring accountability to the taxpayers. Too often, federal agencies forget that the owners of this property are the American people--the federal government is merely its public custodian. Mr. President, the best interests of America's taxpayers have always been at the top of my agenda. I look forward to improving Congressional oversight of government property and securing passage of this legislation during the 106th Congress.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to rename the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCA) in Minnesota and in doing so, salute the father of our Nation's wilderness system, the late Senator from Minnesota and Vice President, Hubert H. Humphrey. My bill would redesignate the BWCA as ``The Hubert Humphrey Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.'' Mr. President, my home state is known for a number of things uniquely Minnesotan. If you've seen the movie ``Grumpy Old Men'' you're aware of our love of ice fishing. If you've flown into Minneapolis, you've seen the Mall of America. If you watched the national weather maps, you've seen our bonechilling winter temperatures. And our new Governor--well, we are proud to say that he is uniquely Minnesotan as well. But if you've ever visited one of our Nation's wilderness areas, you would not necessarily have realized that its creation was due in large part to another uniquely Minnesotan individual, Senator Hubert H. Humphrey. In the early 1960s, right here in these halls and in this Chamber, then-Senator Humphrey lead the charge in helping Congress recognize the wisdom of creating a wilderness preservation system in the United States. Senator Humphrey, as a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, authored the 1964 Wilderness Preservation Act, and by doing so, created the BWCA. Many in our state feel that if it weren't for Senator Humphrey's tireless commitment, there would be no wilderness system and no BWCA. Senator Humphrey worked closely with the people of Northern Minnesota to win their trust and gain their acceptance of a federally designated wilderness area--one that would surely change the way they recreated and the way they lived. In fact, Senator Humphrey's legislation was very controversial and took several years to complete. Last year's passage of legislation to restore two motorized portages in the BWCA was consistent with both Senator Humphrey's vision for the BWCA and his promises to the people of northern Minnesota. Through his dedication and willingness to address the concerns of everyone, we now have a wilderness system that is the envy of the world. Through Senator Humphrey's hard work and dedication to the National Wilderness Preservation System, Americans today have countless protected wilderness areas throughout this country in which they can experience nature as it was 50, 75, or 100 years ago, knowing with certainty that these precious areas will be left intact for generations to come. Senator Humphrey's vision endures to this very day, and Minnesotans are proud to claim the BWCA, one of the nation's true national treasures, as our own. Boy Scouts wait every year for their trip into the Boundary Waters. Families know that every summer they can get away from their jobs, their studies, their cars and their phone, and enjoy at least a few days of peace and quiet. And elderly folks know that their favorite fishing hole is still a fishing hole and still accessible for them and their grandchildren. Like Paul Bunyan, lutefisk, and our State Fair, the Boundary Waters is something uniquely Minnesotan and uniquely identifiable as our own across the country. It is for that reason that I believe it should bear the name of the father of the Wilderness system and be redesignated, ``The Hubert H. Humphrey Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.''

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to rename the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCA) in Minnesota and in doing so, salute the father of our Nation's wilderness system, the late Senator from Minnesota and Vice President, Hubert H. Humphrey. My bill would redesignate the BWCA as ``The Hubert Humphrey Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.'' Mr. President, my home state is known for a number of things uniquely Minnesotan. If you've seen the movie ``Grumpy Old Men'' you're aware of our love of ice fishing. If you've flown into Minneapolis, you've seen the Mall of America. If you watched the national weather maps, you've seen our bonechilling winter temperatures. And our new Governor--well, we are proud to say that he is uniquely Minnesotan as well. But if you've ever visited one of our Nation's wilderness areas, you would not necessarily have realized that its creation was due in large part to another uniquely Minnesotan individual, Senator Hubert H. Humphrey. In the early 1960s, right here in these halls and in this Chamber, then-Senator Humphrey lead the charge in helping Congress recognize the wisdom of creating a wilderness preservation system in the United States. Senator Humphrey, as a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, authored the 1964 Wilderness Preservation Act, and by doing so, created the BWCA. Many in our state feel that if it weren't for Senator Humphrey's tireless commitment, there would be no wilderness system and no BWCA. Senator Humphrey worked closely with the people of Northern Minnesota to win their trust and gain their acceptance of a federally designated wilderness area--one that would surely change the way they recreated and the way they lived. In fact, Senator Humphrey's legislation was very controversial and took several years to complete. Last year's passage of legislation to restore two motorized portages in the BWCA was consistent with both Senator Humphrey's vision for the BWCA and his promises to the people of northern Minnesota. Through his dedication and willingness to address the concerns of everyone, we now have a wilderness system that is the envy of the world. Through Senator Humphrey's hard work and dedication to the National Wilderness Preservation System, Americans today have countless protected wilderness areas throughout this country in which they can experience nature as it was 50, 75, or 100 years ago, knowing with certainty that these precious areas will be left intact for generations to come. Senator Humphrey's vision endures to this very day, and Minnesotans are proud to claim the BWCA, one of the nation's true national treasures, as our own. Boy Scouts wait every year for their trip into the Boundary Waters. Families know that every summer they can get away from their jobs, their studies, their cars and their phone, and enjoy at least a few days of peace and quiet. And elderly folks know that their favorite fishing hole is still a fishing hole and still accessible for them and their grandchildren. Like Paul Bunyan, lutefisk, and our State Fair, the Boundary Waters is something uniquely Minnesotan and uniquely identifiable as our own across the country. It is for that reason that I believe it should bear the name of the father of the Wilderness system and be redesignated, ``The Hubert H. Humphrey Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.''

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I have a number of bills I want to introduce today. I want to start out by talking a little bit about the three bills dealing with budget reform, and then also an important bill leading to crop insurance reform. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce these bills that would reform the Federal budget process, strengthen fiscal discipline and restore Government accountability to ensure that taxpayers are fully represented in Washington. I commend Leader Lott and Chairman Domenici for including budget process reform as one of the top five priorities in the 106th Congress. I believe this should be our immediate priority as we prepare to make our budget process work better. Mr. President, the Federal budget process has become a reckless game in which the team roster is limited to a handful of Washington politicians and technocrats while the taxpayers are relegated to the sidelines. This has not only weakened the nation's fiscal discipline but also undermined the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution. The most recent example of this abusive process was the 1998 Omnibus Appropriation legislation. The bill included $520 billion in funding for many essential Government programs, representing 8 out of Congress' 13 annual appropriations bills. But the entire negotiations were exclusive, arbitrary, and conducted behind closed doors by only a few congressional leaders and White House staff. Few Members of the Congress had any idea what was in the bill but were asked to approve it, without debate, without adequate review, without amendments, and without roll call votes. As a result, Washington broke the spending caps mandated in last year's Balanced Budget Act by spending more than $21 billion of the surplus for so-called ``emergency'' purposes. Budget negotiators magically invented a new smoke and mirrors budget term--``forward funding'' which shifted $9.3 billion into future budgets. Long-criticized ``backdoor spending'' thrived: for example, lawmakers sneaked $1 billion to fund programs to achieve initiatives under the Kyoto treaty. The White House has not sent up the Treaty and the Congress has many reservations about it. Without any policy consideration, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars went to fund such pork programs as, amazingly, caffeinated chewing gum research. The budget process is seriously flawed. Twenty-five years ago, Congress tried to change its budget practices and get spending under control by passing the Congressional Budget Act. Yet, over these 25 years, our national debt has grown from $540 billion to $5.6 trillion. Spending is at an all-time high, and so are taxes. The budget process has become so complicated that most lawmakers have a hard time understanding it. Of course, that hasn't stopped the proliferation of budget gimmicks to circumvent the intent of the Congress. Before the situation explodes completely, Congress must immediately reform the budget process to ensure the integrity of our budget and appropriations process. We can begin in the 106th Congress by taking a few simple steps. The first step is to ensure our government's continued operation without any interruption. Last week, I introduced important legislation that would continue funding for the Government at the prior year's level when Congress and the President fail to complete appropriations legislation. Mr. President, we all still have a fresh memory of the 1995 Federal Government shutdown, the longest one in history, which caused financial damage and inconvenience to millions of Americans when the President refused to support a Balanced Budget Act and tax relief for Americans. However, the most serious damage done by the 27-day shutdown was that it shook the American people's confidence in their Government and in their elected officials. I am concerned that President Clinton would use this technique again to force Congress into spending more money. I believe we can do better for the taxpayers and believe my legislation, the Good Government bill, will help to do that. In May of 1997, I first proposed this as a stand-alone vote in an effort to pass the flood relief bill for Northern Minnesota. The Senate Democratic leader agreed and supported my proposal. I was able to obtain a commitment from the Senate leadership of both parties to pursue the legislation separately in the near future. Last summer, I sought to offer it as an amendment to an appropriations bill. This amendment, originally sponsored by Senator McCain, would have created an automatic procedure for a CR at the end of each fiscal year. Unfortunately, my efforts were not successful. If I had succeeded, we would not have had to go through the debacle last year's omnibus spending bill. Mr. President, we all have different philosophies and policies on budget priorities, and of course we will not always agree. But there are essential functions and services of the Federal Government we must continue to fund regardless of our differences in budget priorities. Program funding must be based on merits, not on political leverage. This legislation would continue funding for the Federal Government at 100 percent of the previous year's level when Congress and the President fail to complete appropriations legislation at the end of any fiscal year. The virtue of this legislation is that it would allow us to debate issues concerning spending policy and the merits of budget priorities while we continue to keep essential Government functions operating. The American taxpayer will no longer be held hostage to a Government shutdown. Mr. President, there are still plenty of uncertainties involved in our budget and appropriations process, particularly this year. We must ensure that this good-government contingency plan is adopted to keep the Government up and running in the event a budget agreement is not reached. Another step we must take is to control our emergency spending. Emergency spending is spending over the budget allotment and is supposed to cover true emergencies, such as natural disaster relief. Instead, Congress and the Administration have used this as an opportunity to bust the budget for a lot of spending that is not emergency related at all. Most of this spending can be planned within our budget limits. Even natural disasters happen regularly--why not put something in our budget to pay for them? That is why I am introducing the ``Emergency Spending Control Act'' today as well. This legislation would require the President to submit a line item in his budget for natural disaster relief funding. The funding levels for this line item would be based on the average spending of the last five years on natural disaster relief. The amount in this line item would not be subject to the current spending caps. The funding of this budget line item must be used exclusively for natural disaster relief--any use for non-natural disasters is strictly prohibited. Mr. President, as a Senator whose State has been previously devastated by the 1997 flood of the Red and Minnesota Rivers, tornadoes, snow, ice and other natural disasters, I know how important enacting this legislation is not only for Minnesotans, but for all Americans. Fortunately, city mayors, the State of Minnesota, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency acted quickly in the Red River Valley, and the rebuilding process moved relatively fast. Local governments continue to work closely with my office and with State and Federal agencies to answer the many questions that still arise as people seek to rebuild their homes, their businesses, and the rest of their lives. We owe it to these Minnesotans and other Americans who have been faced with a natural disaster to require the President to submit a line item in his budget for natural disaster relief funding. Local and State officials should not be required to come to Washington and lobby for funding every time that a natural disaster occurs. We should not have to consider and pass separate ``emergency'' legislation which becomes a magnet for other so-called emergency spending. Disasters occur every year, we should budget for them. Mr. President, the second to the last bill I am introducing today is a bill to enforce and expand the statutory spending caps. Spending limits are a good tool to control spending--if the President and lawmakers stick to them. But since the establishment of statutory spending limits, Washington has repeatedly broken them. Washington set forth new spending caps in 1990 after it failed to meet its deficit reduction targets. In 1993, President Clinton broke the statutory spending caps for his new spending increases and created new caps. But in 1997, the President could not live within his own spending caps, and he broke them again. Last year, President Clinton proposed over $22 billion of so-called ``emergency spending'' in the omnibus spending legislation and again broke the caps. Again and again, Washington lowers the fiscal bar and then jumps over it at the expense of the American taxpayers. This is wrong. Mr. President. If we commit to living within the statutory spending caps, we must stick to it. We must use every tool available to enforce these spending limits. My legislation will help Congress to enforce its fiscal discipline by creating a new budget point of order to allow Congress to exceed spending limits only if two-thirds of its members vote to do so. In addition, my bill would extend the limits beyond the year 2000. Doing so will ensure that spending increases won't grow faster than the income growth of working Americans. There are many other budget process reforms I support as well, promoted by other Senators. One I would like to highlight is the biennial budget, which is proposed by our distinguished colleague, Senator Domenici. Biennial budgeting will allow us to examine our fiscal discipline as well as providing valuable time for our oversight responsibilities. If the Congress adopts each of these changes, it will ensure a budget process that serves the best interests of the nation, allows careful policy and spending deliberation, and strengthens our political institution of government through representation as established by the Constitution. Mr. President, finally I want to take a few minutes to introduce a bill which takes an important step toward improving the nation's federal crop insurance program--and that is a bill that I have introduced, the ``Crop Insurance Reform Act.'' Last year, we witnessed devastating circumstances come together to create a crisis atmosphere for many of our nation's farmers. I know that in my own state of Minnesota, multiple years of wet weather and crop disease--especially scab--coupled with rising production costs and plummeting commodity prices have devastated family farms in record numbers. With the increased opportunities that accompany Freedom to Farm come increased risks. We've seen this first hand. Freedom to Farm can work, but a necessary component of it, as I have argued repeatedly, is an adequate crop insurance program. This component has been missing so far. One of the promises made during debate of the 1996 Farm Bill was that Congress would address the need for better crop insurance. We must not let another growing season pass without having instituted a new, effective crop insurance program. This overhaul is a major undertaking, and instituting a program of comprehensive reform should be and is now a legislative priority. In fact, the President has included a number of ideas for reforming the federal crop insurance program in his recent budget proposal. Most importantly, the President has suggested increasing the federal subsidies on crop insurance premiums and eliminating disparities in subsidy rates. Essentially, this is similar to legislation I introduced last year and am introducing again today. Unfortunately, while the President claims to support crop insurance reform, he has failed to identify any money in his budget to fund it. However, now that he has recognized the urgency of the situation, I hope we can work together to accomplish meaningful reform. Furthermore, we must resume the debate now so that we can have the best system in place in time, and that we can do it in time for the year 2000 crops. The bill I am introducing today is a first step. It is the result of months of work from my Minnesota Crop Insurance Work Group. The Work Group consists of various commodity groups, farm organizations, rural lenders, and agriculture economists. We have also worked closely with USDA's Farm Service and Risk Management Agencies. But it was my primary intention to assemble a committee of farmers and lenders--people who know the situation and have seen the problems firsthand. The Crop Insurance Reform Act is designed to address the coverage decision a farmer must make at the initial stages of purchasing crop insurance. Producers have been telling us that they need better coverage, but that it is currently too expensive. My bill will allow more options for producers to choose from when making risk-management decisions. It essentially provides farmers with an enhanced coverage product at a more affordable price. Currently, producer premium subsidies range from nearly 42 percent at the 100 percent price election for 65 percent coverage, to only 13 percent at the 100 percent price election for 85 percent coverage. Although the Risk Management Agency has recently provided better product options, the relatively low subsidy levels at the higher ends of coverage make them cost prohibitive. My bill will put in place a flat subsidy level of 31 percent across the 100 percent price election and at all levels of coverage. This will adjust the producer premiums to make better coverage more affordable, thereby removing the incentive from purchasing lesser-grade coverage. The Crop Insurance Reform Act puts the focus of the coverage decision on what really matters: and that is the type of coverage which would be needed in the event of a disaster or loss, rather than simply making the decision based upon up-front costs. When farmers are armed with the necessary risk management tools, I believe everybody will save. The government saves in ad hoc disaster payments, arguably the most expensive way to address any kind of financial crisis. But more importantly, the family farmer saves. This bill is part of a continued effort to reform Federal Crop Insurance. Over the next few months, I will continue to work with my Crop Insurance Work Group, and my colleagues, Senators Lugar and Roberts, to craft a comprehensive program which directly benefits producers and also will be here to protect the taxpayers.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the second bill I am introducing with my good friend, Senator Crapo of Idaho, is lockbox legislation. Before being elected to the Senate in 1998, Mike Crapo led the fight to enact the Lock Box legislation in the House of Representatives. His version of the Lock Box legislation was passed by the House of Representatives on four different occassions, both as a free standing bill and as an amendment. I am pleased to have Senator Crapo as a partner on this legislation in the Senate. Mr. President, our short-term fiscal situation has improved greatly due to the continued growth of our economy. It is reported that we may end up with a unified budget surplus of over $80 billion this year and a $4.5 trillion surplus in the next 15 years. Of course, tax dollars are always considered ``free money'' by the big spenders here in Washington, and the thought of all that new ``free surplus money'' is creating a feeding frenzy on Capitol Hill. If we don't lock away this increased revenue for the taxpayers, the government will spend every penny of it. Despite the rhetoric about reserving it all for Social Security, Washington has already spent $30 billion of last year's budget surplus. We need a lockbox to dedicate any increased revenue in the future and return it to the taxpayers as tax relief, debt reduction, and Social Security reform. Since the unexpected revenue has come directly from working Americans, I believe it is only fair to return it to them. The tax burden on the American people is still historically high. It's sound policy to use our non-Social Security surplus to lower the tax burden and allow families to keep a little more of their hard-earned money. Over the past 30 years, as I mentioned, we have amassed a $5.6 trillion national debt thanks to Washington's culture of spending. A newborn child today will bear over $20,000 of that debt the moment he or she comes into the world. Each year, we sink more than $250 billion into the black hole of interest payments, which could be better spent fighting crime, maintaining roads and bridges, and equipping the military. It's sound policy to use part of any surpluses to begin paying down the national debt and reducing the financial burden on the next generations. The budget surpluses also give us a great opportunity to address our other long-term financial imbalances. Federal unfunded liabilities could eventually top $20 trillion, bankrupting our government if no real reform occurs. It's vitally important that we use the entire Social Security surplus exclusively for Social Security, and we should even use a portion of the non-Social Security surplus to finance Social Security reforms. If we don't lock in the surplus, Washington will spend all of it to expand the government. That's what they are doing now. Last month alone, President Clinton proposed 41 new programs. The spending increases he outlined could reach $300 billion a year, the highest increase proposed by any President in our history. Mr. President, we must never, never, never repeat the mistake we made in 1997 and 1998, and allow Washington take a huge bite into the taxpayers' money. We must do everything we can to ensure we reserve any increased revenue for Social Security, tax relief and debt reduction.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Taxpayer Oversight of Surplus Property Act. I am pleased that Congressman John Peterson of Pennsylvania will soon introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Among the many programs administered by hundreds of federal agencies, there are some initiatives that depend upon the active involvement of both the federal government and the states in order to ensure the wisest use of taxpayer dollars and meet the needs of the American people. One such effective partnership involves the distribution of federal surplus personal property to states and local organizations. In 1976, President Ford signed legislation which established the current system for the fair and equitable donation of federal surplus personal property. Personal property declared ``surplus'' consists of items other than land or real property, naval vessels, and records of the federal government. This includes office supplies, furniture, medical supplies, hardware, motor vehicles, boats, airplanes, and construction equipment. Under the federal personal property utilization and donation program, the General Services Administration is responsible for the transfer of federal surplus personal property to the states. Each state agency for surplus property receives the transfer of property and distributes these items to eligible recipients. Property that is not selected by the states is offered for sale to the general public. Importantly, the interests of the American taxpayers guide this entire process. Mr. President, there are close to 70,000 recipients of federal surplus property located throughout the United States. Each day, cities, counties, Indian tribes, hospitals, schools, and public safety agencies are among the public and nonprofit organizations that look toward the state agencies for surplus property to help meet their needs. Last April, I had the opportunity to visit the Minnesota surplus property agency, where I was joined by the lieutenant governor, the executive director of the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, and the commissioner of the state Department of Corrections. While there, I quickly became more familiar with the success of the donation program throughout Minnesota. I am very confident that my Senate colleagues will find that the donation program has achieved a comparable level of success in each of their states. In fiscal year 1997, the Minnesota surplus property agency donated equipment and supplies with an original federal acquisition cost of $7.7 million to 1,700 eligible recipients, saving precious tax dollars if these items had been purchased new or on the open market. I was impressed to learn that 414 cities, 80 medical institutions, 19 museums, 237 public schools, 110 county entities, 160 State agencies, and 353 townships are among the active participants in the donation program. Equally impressive is how effectively the state agencies for surplus property and the GSA have worked together to respond quickly and efficiently during times of natural disasters. Together they have successfully identified and transported sandbags, blankets, cots, tools, trucks and other items to disaster sites. I know that Minnesotans who suffered through the 1997 Midwest floods are gratified to have received over $3.7 million worth of federal surplus property to assist flood relief efforts during that horrible time. Quite simply, the donation program has provided taxpayers with the equipment, supplies and material used to educate our children, maintain roads and streets, keep utility rates reasonable, train the workers of tomorrow, protect families from crime, provide needed relief during natural disasters, and treat the health of our nation's sick and needy. In fact, the original acquisition value of property distributed through the state agencies for surplus property totaled over $1.5 billion between fiscal years 1995 through 1997. Because of the importance my constituents place upon the availability of this property, I am very concerned about current programs which limit the donation of property to the states. My concern is based in part upon comments expressed to me by constituents such as Mayor Richard Nelson of Warren, Minnesota. Mayor Nelson recently wrote, When we inquired about the shortage of heavy equipment we were told that a large majority of that equipment is shipped overseas to other countries for humanitarian aid. I feel that our taxes paid for this equipment and it seems only fair that we should have the first opportunity to benefit from it. Being the mayor of a community that has suffered from four floods within two years, I believe that we have unmet needs in this country that need to be addressed before we can look at any outside interests. Mr. President, Mayor Nelson's concerns go to the heart of the legislation that I am introducing today. I believe that the volume of distributed federal surplus property would increase if the intent of Congress when it passed the 1976 reforms was more closely followed. If Congress continues to allow surplus federal property to go abroad, or not make its way through proper channels to eligible recipients, taxpayers such as those in the community of Warren will stand to lose. As someone who has always worked to ensure the wisest possible use of taxpayer dollars, this gives me great concern. The legislation I am introducing will help to address these concerns through the following provisions. First, this measure would ensure that when distributing surplus federal personal property, domestic needs are met before we consider foreign interests. It would, however, grant the President the authority to make supplies available for humanitarian relief purposes before going to the states, in the case of emergencies or natural disasters. Under the Humanitarian Assistance Program (HAP), the Secretary of Defense is permitted to make nonlethal Department of Defense supplies available by the State Department to foreign countries as part of humanitarian relief activities. I was disturbed to learn that over $1 billion worth of excess supplies was made available to the State Department between fiscal years 1987 through 1997 before GSA had been given an opportunity to review the property and make it available for donation to the states. Mr. President, I understand that some officials may argue that the Humanitarian Assistance Program is an important part of our nation's foreign assistance efforts. Many foreign countries and organizations clearly have benefited from nonlethal Department of Defense excess property finance by American taxpayers. Although I have serious concerns about this initiative, my legislation does not eliminate the Humanitarian Assistance Program. However, I believe we must prioritize the needs of disaster victims in Minnesota, rural hospitals in Arkansas, police departments in Washington state, school districts in Idaho, homeless assistance providers in Florida, and other communities and organizations which have invested their tax dollars in government property and the donation program. For these reasons, I oppose the continued priority status granted to foreign recipients under programs such as the Humanitarian Assistance Program. Second, my bill would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to prohibit the transfer of Government-owned excess property to foreign countries or international organizations for environmental protection activities in foreign countries unless GSA determined that there is no federal or state use for the property. Third, this legislation would require GSA to report to Congress on the effectiveness of all statutes relating to the disposal and donation of personal property and recommend any changes that would further improve the Donation Program. Mr. President, my bill is based on the principle that eligible recipients should be able to maximize their tax dollars through expendable federal property that meets their needs. It takes an important step toward stopping publicly-owned property from being shipped abroad and given to other organizations before it is distributed through each state agency for surplus property. My legislation will fulfill the public's right to know how and where their tax dollars are being spent. In many ways, it will serve as the second phase of the reforms overwhelmingly passed by Congress in 1976, by preserving the active role of states in the handling and distribution of surplus federal property. Members of Congress and state and local officials all have an obligation to see that the government distributes this property fairly and equitably, ensuring accountability to the taxpayers. Too often, federal agencies forget that the owners of this property are the American people--the federal government is merely its public custodian. Mr. President, the best interests of America's taxpayers have always been at the top of my agenda. I look forward to improving Congressional oversight of government property and securing passage of this legislation during the 106th Congress.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the State and Local Government Participation Act of 1999. I would like to thank Senator Thomas for introducing this simple, but very important piece of legislation. As Senator Thomas said in his introductory remarks, this legislation would make state and county governments ``cooperating agencies'' in the National Environmental Policy Act process. For example, when the Forest Service decides to undertake a timber sale, it will have to by law consult and obtain the input of state and county governments during the NEPA process. Current law, however, only requires the federal government to consult with other federal agencies. The underlying concept of this legislation is something most people would assume already takes place. Average Americans assume that the federal government considers state and local governments partners in all land-use and environmental decisions. After all, it is an established fact that local citizens and officials can best meet local problems with local solutions. And in those matters, people expect the federal government to help out where needed and take the lead where appropriate. But average Americans, unfortunately, often aren't aware of the complete picture. Too often, the federal government adopts its ``I know best'' philosophy and ignores the input of local officials or even excludes them from the decision making process. One of the first things locally elected officials in the northern part of my state--an area which deals with the National Environmental Policy Act regularly--say to me when we sit down to talk is that the federal government doesn't care about their needs. They feel the federal government, be it the Forest Service, Park Service, or EPA, just doesn't seem to realize that counties are having a tough time making ends meet and providing basic services to its residents in an era of increased land-regulation and decreased logging, mining, and access. And when they show you the numbers and make their case, it is impossible to disagree with them. There are a number of counties in northern Minnesota which are predominantly federally owned. St. Louis County is 62 percent federally owned, Cook County is 82 percent federally owned, and Lake County is 92 percent federally owned. They are home to the Superior National Forest and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Not far away is Voyageurs National Park and not far from that is the Chippewa National Forest. Not surprisingly, they are often placed in the middle of many disputes over land-uses. They continue to see their PILT payments funded at barely 50 percent of authorized amounts. They continue to witness more and more restrictions on the use of lands within their counties and the Forest Services declining timber sales. And they continue to see their populations declining as a result of lost economic opportunities. They deserve to be heard when the federal government is going to take actions in their communities. Mr. President, it is clear that in the last half of this century power has shifted from our nation's cities and states to Washington, DC. No one disputes that. And while many of us would like to see that shift back the other way, it may take some time to get it done. But what we should all be able to agree upon, is that locally elected officials should have a seat at the table and should be treated as equals and as partners by federal agencies. They know what is happening on their land and they know the people who will be impacted by changes in the law. They also know what the impact will be on a county or state budget. But most importantly, Mr. President, county and state officials are closer to the people. Their phone numbers are actually in the phone book and they aren't a long distance call away. They answer their door when someone comes knocking. And they aren't a bureaucrat hidden away in Washington, DC, making one size fits all policy decisions. As I stated earlier, I think those people deserve a role in the NEPA process and I think the American people would agree. I urge my colleagues to protect their state and local government's right to participate by supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Georgia for organizing this time and giving us an opportunity to speak on some of the subjects that I think are very important to this Congress. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in offering our perspective on the State of the Union--on both last night's speech by the President, and also the direction I believe we are headed as a nation. Let me begin with the speech. What we heard from the President last night was vintage Bill Clinton. And that is lots of promises, lots of poll-tested proposals, lots of talk, but that all adds up to more spending and more Washington control. In fact, in about 77 minutes he made about 77 new promises of spending for Washington. Each of us want good schools for our children, security for our retirement years, a tax system that lets us meet important family obligations, and more opportunities for Americans to sell their products around the world. But empty promises from Washington are not going to help. The President believes the answer in part lies in targeted tax cuts that try to regulate behavior. It is a way to bribe the taxpayers with their own money by saying, ``If you do this for me, I will cut your taxes in return.'' That is the wrong approach. It is aimed at a certain political segment, and because of that, 90 percent of the people in this country will not benefit. The tax cuts proposed by the President add up to too few dollars that only a few people would benefit from. If we are truly going to pursue economic freedom for all, the real answer is to reduce the roadblocks to success. That, I believe, begins with our continuing efforts on cutting taxes for everyone. Yesterday, I joined Chairman Roth in introducing S. 3, the Tax Cuts for All Americans Act. Our legislation, one of the top five priorities of Republicans in the 106th Congress, would offer a ten percent across- the-board tax cut for every American, instead of the President's targeted tax scheme that ignores most working families. A ten-percent cut is meaningful tax relief for all, not token tax relief for just a few. Mr. President, in one word, the state of the union is ``overtaxed.'' American families are taxed at the highest levels in our history, even higher than during World War II, with nearly 40 percent of a typical family's budget going to pay taxes on the federal, state and local levels. Over $1.8 trillion of their income will be siphoned off to Washington this year. Certainly, the taxpayers are in desperate need of relief. Freedom for families means giving families the freedom to spend more of their own dollars as they choose. Our bill will cut the personal tax rate for each American by 10 percent across the board. It will increase incentives to work. It will increase incentives to save and invest. It will help to improve the standard of living for all Americans. The 10 percent across-the-board tax cut will not only benefit families, but it will also have a substantial, positive impact on the economy as a whole. It will increase the financial rewards of hard work, entrepreneurship, innovation, and productivity--the very foundations upon which this nation has thrived. If the state of the union is overtaxed, the President did not help much with the laundry list of new initiatives he proposed last night that would expand the size and scope of the already enormous federal government. It was about 2 years ago that we heard the era of big government was over. Well, the era of big government is now alive and well. In fact, it is a mammoth new government under the proposals of President Clinton last night. Many of these programs sound good, but what the President did not spell out is exactly who is going to pay for it--and, of course, we all know that its the taxpayers. In other words, I say he led Americans into the candy store last night and said, ``you can have anything you want.'' The only problem is he didn't tell you who is going to have to pay for it. The White House ``spinmeisters'' suggested the President's proposals would, ``knock your socks off.'' Instead, those proposals will pick your pockets. Mr. President, let me say this as clearly as I can: I will strongly oppose any proposals that are designed to build the President's popularity at the expense of the American taxpayers. I am also disappointed by the comments made by the President last night about the ailing Social Security system. We heard a lot of vague promises that ultimately leave the government in control of your retirement dollars and do nothing to save Social Security from bankruptcy or create a better retirement system for the next generation. The President is worried about saving a failed retirement system that promises small benefits when he should be working to create a system that provides larger benefits and more security for everybody. Let us worry about people, and not expend precious time and resources trying to save a dying government program. If we are truly serious about offering Americans the opportunity to achieve wealth and security in their retirement years, legislation I have introduced that would allow workers to set up personal retirement accounts is a far better approach. Mr. President, the American people now have a choice: empty words and poll-tested promises on one hand, and a real taxpayers' agenda of freedom and opportunity on the other. The state of the union can be improved, as my colleagues and I have so vigorously suggested today. And the people are depending on us to lead the way. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues for the introduction of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Act of 1999. I would like to thank Senator Johnson and Senator Daschle for their hard work and dedication to this project over the past two Congresses. Mr. President, the Southwestern corner of Minnesota, along with adjoining areas in South Dakota and Iowa, is now served by a wholly inadequate water system which is highly susceptible to drought, leading most of the communities in this region to impose severe water restrictions. The situation has forced communities throughout the region to explore aggressively alternative water supplies. Communities such as Luverne and Worthington, both in southwestern Minnesota, have spent tens of thousands of dollars yearly in an unsuccessful search for another water source, always with the same disappointing results. Eventually, however, it was determined that by working together with communities throughout the region and in all three states, a workable solution might be found. That solution is the bill we are introducing today. Under this legislation, local communities will come together with the affected states and the federal government to form a strong, financial partnership, thereby ensuring an adequate, safe water supply while reducing the cost to the American taxpayers. The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System is a fiscally responsible project that invests in the future economic health of the tri-state region by strengthening its critical utilities infrastructure. With increasing population growth, economic development, new federal drinking water regulations, water demands, and shallow wells and aquifers which are subject to contamination, it is critical that the area encompassed by the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System establish a clean, reliable water source to meet the demand for future water use that cannot be met by present resources. Mr. President, this legislation has been before the Senate for the last two Congresses. Last year, we were successful in passing the legislation through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This year, we must see this bill passed by the Senate and the House and sent to the President for his signature. Providing safe and available drinking water to our communities is one of the most basic functions of government. It is not a partisan issue, and therefore I am proud to join with a bipartisan group of my colleagues and the governors of Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa in supporting this bill.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 3, the Tax Cuts for All Americans Act, along with Senator Roth, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. First, I'd like to commend the Senate Majority Leader for including this important legislation as one of the Republicans' top 5 agenda items and Finance Committee Chairman Roth for making this a committee priority. This emphasizes the importance and commitment by Republicans to provide meaningful tax relief for working Americans. Mr. President, American families are taxed at the highest levels in our history, even higher than during World War II, with nearly 40 percent of a typical family's budget going to pay taxes on the federal, state and local levels. Today, the Clinton Administration consumes over 20.5 percent of America's entire gross domestic product. That's the highest level since 1945 when taxes were raised to pay for the war. The average American family today spends more on taxes than it does on food, clothing, and housing combined. If the ``hidden taxes'' that result from the high cost of government regulations are factored in, a family today gives up more than 50 percent of its annual income to the government. At a time when the combination of federal income and payroll taxes, state and local taxes, and hidden taxes consumes over half of a working family's budget, the taxpayers are in desperate need of relief. Americans today are working harder but taking home less. Over $1.8 trillion of their income will be siphoned off to the federal government this year. It is more critical than ever to provide meaningful tax relief for working Americans. Freedom for families means giving families the freedom to spend more of their own dollars as they choose. This tax relief would give Americans more freedom and create more economic opportunities for them and their children. That's why I am introducing this legislation today. Tax relief should benefit all Americans, not just those who have been targeted in the past. My bill, S. 3, will do just that. My bill will cut the personal tax rate for each American by 10 percent. It will increase incentives to work, save and invest. It will improve the standards of living for all Americans and permit the growth in our economy we expect to continue and it will encourage Americans to work harder and produce more. By enacting the 10 percent across-the-board tax cut, we can begin turning back the decades of abuse taxpayers have suffered at the hands of their own government, a government too often eager to spend the taxpayers' money to expand its reach over more of our economy and personal lives. It was John F. Kennedy who observed that ``an economy hampered with high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget just as it will never produce enough output and enough jobs.'' Twenty-seven years ago, President Reagan enacted a 25 percent across- the-board tax cut and in 1986, President Reagan signed a landmark piece of legislation to reduce the marginal tax rate to a simple two-rate income tax system: 15 percent and 28 percent. What resulted was nothing short of an economic miracle. Our nation experienced the longest peacetime economic expansion in American history, the benefits of which we are still enjoying today. Ronald Reagan fought for tax cuts, not to bribe special interest groups to buy their votes--but because individuals have a right to spend their own money. President Reagan was right. When we enact the 10 percent across-the- board tax cut, we will make our economy more dynamic, and our families more prosperous as we approach the 21st century. While I prefer a total overhaul of the tax system and will shortly introduce a bill to repeal the current system with a consumption tax, this is a much-needed first step we should all agree is our first priority for this Congress.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 3, the Tax Cuts for All Americans Act, along with Senator Roth, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. First, I'd like to commend the Senate Majority Leader for including this important legislation as one of the Republicans' top 5 agenda items and Finance Committee Chairman Roth for making this a committee priority. This emphasizes the importance and commitment by Republicans to provide meaningful tax relief for working Americans. Mr. President, American families are taxed at the highest levels in our history, even higher than during World War II, with nearly 40 percent of a typical family's budget going to pay taxes on the federal, state and local levels. Today, the Clinton Administration consumes over 20.5 percent of America's entire gross domestic product. That's the highest level since 1945 when taxes were raised to pay for the war. The average American family today spends more on taxes than it does on food, clothing, and housing combined. If the ``hidden taxes'' that result from the high cost of government regulations are factored in, a family today gives up more than 50 percent of its annual income to the government. At a time when the combination of federal income and payroll taxes, state and local taxes, and hidden taxes consumes over half of a working family's budget, the taxpayers are in desperate need of relief. Americans today are working harder but taking home less. Over $1.8 trillion of their income will be siphoned off to the federal government this year. It is more critical than ever to provide meaningful tax relief for working Americans. Freedom for families means giving families the freedom to spend more of their own dollars as they choose. This tax relief would give Americans more freedom and create more economic opportunities for them and their children. That's why I am introducing this legislation today. Tax relief should benefit all Americans, not just those who have been targeted in the past. My bill, S. 3, will do just that. My bill will cut the personal tax rate for each American by 10 percent. It will increase incentives to work, save and invest. It will improve the standards of living for all Americans and permit the growth in our economy we expect to continue and it will encourage Americans to work harder and produce more. By enacting the 10 percent across-the-board tax cut, we can begin turning back the decades of abuse taxpayers have suffered at the hands of their own government, a government too often eager to spend the taxpayers' money to expand its reach over more of our economy and personal lives. It was John F. Kennedy who observed that ``an economy hampered with high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget just as it will never produce enough output and enough jobs.'' Twenty-seven years ago, President Reagan enacted a 25 percent across- the-board tax cut and in 1986, President Reagan signed a landmark piece of legislation to reduce the marginal tax rate to a simple two-rate income tax system: 15 percent and 28 percent. What resulted was nothing short of an economic miracle. Our nation experienced the longest peacetime economic expansion in American history, the benefits of which we are still enjoying today. Ronald Reagan fought for tax cuts, not to bribe special interest groups to buy their votes--but because individuals have a right to spend their own money. President Reagan was right. When we enact the 10 percent across-the- board tax cut, we will make our economy more dynamic, and our families more prosperous as we approach the 21st century. While I prefer a total overhaul of the tax system and will shortly introduce a bill to repeal the current system with a consumption tax, this is a much-needed first step we should all agree is our first priority for this Congress.