Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the ``Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act of 1999'' sponsored by Senator Spence Abraham of Michigan. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation that will toughen federal policy toward powder cocaine dealers. As we begin the legislative business of the Senate this year, we must strengthen our efforts to stop illegal drug use and drug-related crime and violence. We must fulfill our moral obligation to communicate the dangers and consequences of illegal drug use. Continuing our fight against the threat of drug abuse is one of the most important contributions the 106th Congress can make toward providing a promising future for the young people of America. Under current law, a dealer must distribute 500 grams of powder cocaine to qualify for a 5-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, and distribute 5 grams of crack cocaine for that offense. These sentencing guidelines result in a 100-to-1 quantity ratio between powder and more severe crack cocaine distribution sentences. This disparity has caused a great deal of concern among members of Congress and the administration. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration fails to see the dangers in changing the federal crack cocaine distribution law. During the 104th Congress, the U.S. Sentencing Commission recommended a lower threshold under which a convicted person may receive a 5-year mandatory sentence in cases involving the distribution of crack cocaine. Through the leadership of Senator Abraham, Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation which rejected the Sentencing Commission's proposal. At the signing ceremony for this legislation, President Clinton expressed the strong message its enactment would send to our Nation and those who choose to deal drugs throughout our communities. President Clinton remarked, We have to send a constant message to our children that drugs are illegal, drugs are dangerous, drugs may cost you your life--and the penalties for dealing drugs are severe. I am not going to let anyone who peddles drugs get the idea that the cost of doing business is going down. Regrettably, the Clinton administration continues to promote a federal sentencing policy for crack cocaine offenses that fails to recognize the dangerous and addictive nature of this illegal substance and its impact upon violent crime throughout our communities. In an April 1997 report to Congress, the Sentencing Commission unanimously recommended an increase in the mandatory minimum trigger for the distribution of crack cocaine. I share the views expressed by the administration and community groups in my home state of Minnesota that the current penalty disparity in cocaine sentencing should be addressed. However, I disagree with the ill-advised manner in which the administration seeks to achieve this goal by making the mandatory minimum prison sentences for crack cocaine dealers at least five times more lenient than they are today. Mr. President, the legislation offered today by Senator Abraham represents a fair and effective approach toward federal cocaine sentencing policy. Rather than make federal crack cocaine sentences more lenient, the Abraham bill would reduce from 500 to 50 grams the amount of powder cocaine a person must be convicted of distributing before receiving a mandatory 5-year sentence. This legislation would adjust the current 100-to-1 quantity ratio to 10-to-1 by toughening powder cocaine sentences without reducing crack cocaine sentences. By February 1, Congress will receive a National Drug Control Strategy from the Office of National Drug Control Policy which will contain goals for reducing drug abuse in the United States. As part of this plan, I am hopeful that National Drug Control Policy Director Barry McCaffrey will speak out forcefully against any proposal to make sentences for a person who is convicted of dealing crack cocaine more lenient. Punishing drug dealers who prey upon the innocence of our children should be a critical component of our nation's drug strategy. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the ``Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act of 1999'' and reject lower federal crack sentences. We should exercise greater oversight of federal sentencing policy for cocaine offenses. Passage of this legislation will help give greater protection to Americans from drugs by keeping offenders off the streets for longer periods of time.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I also rise this morning to discuss my opposition to the omnibus appropriations legislation that was before us this morning. While I realize many of my colleagues would have preferred not to return for this vote, there are a number of us who believed that a vote was essential on a bill that appropriates a third of our spending priorities for fiscal year 1999. To shirk our responsibility to the taxpayers, to hide behind an unrecorded vote, was unconceivable. I feel strongly that we are elected to represent the American people and to take care of the Nation's business. The people expect us to be responsible. They expect us to be accountable. They expect us to be here and do our job. In other words, when it is time to cast a vote of this magnitude, they expect us to be here, to stand up and to be counted. The omnibus appropriation legislation includes $500 billion in funding for many essential Government programs and functions. It represents 8 out of 13 appropriations bills, or two-thirds of this year's entire appropriations work, one-third of our entire annual Federal spending. It is by far the most important piece of legislation we have before us this year. This monster bill consists of more than 4,000 pages. We can hardly lift it, much less take time to review it before the vote. I venture to say that most Members of the Senate still have no idea what is in it. Even Evelyn Wood herself could not have made it through this volume in the few short hours we had to digest it. It would take days to get through it, but we are only allowed to review it in the Chamber, with no copies available for the individual review that is necessary. I don't believe they are available yet. Just to approve it, we were told, and everyone would be free to go home and campaign. One Democratic House Member was quoted as saying, ``We would be better off not knowing what is in the bill.'' He said, ``Ignorance is bliss.'' Even the House appropriations chairman called this an ``ominous'' spending bill. Shame on Congress. If that is truly what my colleagues really believe, and if they really do think so little of the taxpayers whose dollars fund every program, every agency, and every piece of pork tucked so carefully into this bill, I say to them, perhaps you have been in Washington too long. This is not how I look upon my own responsibilities to my Minnesota constituents and my constitutional duty to the Nation. The people of Minnesota didn't send me here to rubber stamp anything, and certainly not this bill. What disgusts me most is the process that produced this omnibus appropriations legislation. The entire negotiations were secretive, arbitrary, conducted behind closed doors by only a handful of congressional leaders and White House staff. The special interests were well represented at that table, but the taxpayers clearly were not. Again, the special interests were well represented at the table, but the taxpayers clearly were not. Is this the best deal we could get with this President? I guess it is. President Clinton was intent on spending more money, money from the surplus, money that he said, in fact, should be saved for Social Security. But President Clinton's thoughts on spending Social Security money must have been more important than evidently saving Social Security. As soon as the bill emerged from that protective cloak, it was thrown at us and we were told to agree to it. No process of floor consideration, no debate, no amendments, no votes. I have to wonder whether this is truly a democracy. This isn't the way we do business in this great democracy. It is true Congress has behaved this way before and the secretive goings-on are nothing new. But this does not make it right. As early at 1988, President Reagan stood up and asked Congress to change this practice. It is wrong because it destroys our democracy. It undermines our political institution of government through representation. It is wrong because it allows just a few to make policy without careful deliberation and to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayers' hard-earned money without the taxpayers being duly represented. We must stop this practice now. Early in March, I reluctantly voted for the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution in the Budget Committee. I did so to help facilitate the process and offer a chance to improve the budget plan as it moved to the Senate floor. I later again voted for the budget resolution based on a breakthrough agreement reached with the Senate leadership. Under this agreement, our leadership would pursue the larger tax relief number of either the Senate or House, and it would make the repeal of the marriage penalty our top priority. They committed to a tax bill this year protected by reconciliation legislation. Unfortunately, these commitments were never honored. What did we end up with instead? Tax increases, not tax relief. More spending, not leaner, more efficient Government. And again we faced a President who threatened to veto a Government shutdown if we even dared to send him tax relief for the American people. President Clinton called Americans ``selfish'' if they want some of their surplus money back, their extra tax dollars. Republicans have joined Democrats and the President to raise the higher spending levels added in the negotiations. It is beyond belief that, facing the first budget surplus in a quarter of a century, that this Congress could have joined with the President to produce this bill in this election year. I have argued repeatedly before this Chamber that the surplus is generated directly by increased individual income tax payments and it has little--little--to do with Government policy. In other words, the credit for the surplus does not go to the President, to the Senate, or to the House, but the surplus goes to the productivity of the American business and the American worker. Outside the money earmarked for Social Security, we owe it to the taxpayers to return at least some of that surplus to them. That would have been the moral and it would have been the fair thing to do. I also warned repeatedly that if we don't return at least a portion of the surplus to the taxpayers, and soon, that Washington will spend it all, leaving nothing for tax relief or the vitally important task of preserving Social Security. The omnibus appropriations legislation proves my point dramatically. This bill is nothing but a continuation of President Clinton's tax-and- spend policies. Again, the President's own words, ``Save Social Security first,'' and I guess what he really meant was, ``Let me spend the Social Security surplus first,'' and make sure that the taxpayer does not get their hands on the surplus. Despite the rhetoric about fiscal discipline, Washington has broken the spending caps by using the budget surplus. The spending bill exceeds the caps by at least $20 billion, and the only reason there is any surplus still on the table is that Washington evidently ran out of time to spend it. To mask its budget maneuvering, Washington has covered its tracks with budget gimmicks, including $4 billion in Social Security ``forward funding'' into the year 2000. How are we going to adapt this to lower spending next year? Will we keep on forward funding into the future, shrinking and shirking our budget responsibilities? Another dishonest accounting measure was to label this additional spending as ``emergency spending'' in order to justify the breaking of the spending caps. Instead of fencing off the budget surplus to save Social Security first, as it claims it is doing, Washington has spent an additional $22 billion of the budget surplus--a third of the surplus--to fund non-Social Security programs--again, nearly one-third of the 1998 budget surplus. This is Washington hypocrisy of the highest degree. In the past few months, I heard so much demagoguery in the Chamber about saving Social Security, and we have heard the President pledge repeatedly to the public that he wanted to use every penny of the surplus for Social Security. But to date, the administration is still denying they have, in fact, used the budget surplus. It appears this administration has a very unique way of interpreting the truth or admitting the obvious. Few of the ``emergency spending'' items in this bill are truly emergency related. Many of these dollars could have been added early on in the appropriations process. But the maneuvering allowed the President to spend more, and I know President Clinton's biggest disappointment in this budget is he wasn't able to spend even more. The Y2K problem is not new. The need for Bosnia troops funds and the readiness funds is also not new. These should have been funded earlier. They should have been funded through the normal budget and appropriations process. But that allowed them to spend more of the regular budget so they could come back and dig deeper into the surplus to spend more money. I only wish this Congress and the President could be as creative in finding ways to reduce taxes, cut spending and make the Government more efficient as they are in finding new and creative ways of spending money, especially the surplus, and making this Government even bigger. It is ironic that my Republican colleagues are scared to death of using the budget surplus for tax relief, despite the fact that it is the taxpayers' money in the first place, but don't mind at all in helping the Democrats to spend it. This bill is a Christmas tree that is loaded not with ornaments but with plenty of pork projects and backdoor spending. Here is one example: The bill includes $1 billion for global warming, a 26-percent increase from last year's funding level. The Senate and the House had previously rejected this level of funding--rejected it--but somehow somebody managed to just sneak it back into the bill. Yet the President hasn't even sent us the global warming treaty. So this funding basically just mocks the Hagel-Byrd resolution that we passed last year. There are some good provisions that I support and worked hard to have included in this bill. There are many good things in here, such as the desperately needed relief for farmers, IMF funding, and 100 percent healthcare cost deductions. Frankly, some of the provisions and funding will help my own state of Minnesota. But the reckless process and irresponsible spending overshadows these good provisions. It was against my conscience to vote for this legislation. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed by the inability of our own Republican leadership to keep its promise to working Americans. I am also deeply troubled that the Republican Party seems to have lost its courage to stand up to our principles. I expect compromises have to be made, but not compromises so heavily weighted in one direction, allowing heavy handed arm twisting, black mailing tactics of this White House to succeed. When I first ran for Congress six years ago, I was very proud to be a Republican because we believed in our vision of a government that works for the people, and we believed government should be limited to only that amount needed for necessary services. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has long believed that people should work for the government--or, at the very least, that the government has a right to spend every penny it can take from working Americans. Basically, Washington doesn't believe Americans are smart enough to take care of themselves. I don't know many Americans who believe they need Washington to hold their hand in spending their money or taking care of their families. That is exactly why the American taxpayers ushered in an era of Republican congressional leadership in 1994--a new majority that pledged to provide fiscal discipline, individual freedom, personal responsibility, and prosperity for all people. What changes have this new majority made four years after the 1994 Republican revolution? Well, the distinctions between the two political parties have all but disappeared; the taxes on working Americans are at an all-time high; the government is getting bigger, not smaller; federal spending has increased from $1.5 trillion in 1994 to $1.76 trillion today; and the national debt has grown from $4.9 trillion to $5.7 trillion, an $810 billion increase. Mr. President, these are the differences for which this Republican- led Congress can take its share of the credit, or more honestly the blame! Republicans failed not because our efforts have lost the support of the people, but because our party has lost its backbone. It has lost the courage to make a stand on principle and not abandon its moral compass at the first sign of resistance. Mr. President, each time Congress makes a promise to the taxpayers-- as it did in promising significant tax relief this year--and then deserts them, Congress comforts itself by saying it will come back next year and enact an even larger tax cut. I view this as an insult that flies in the face of Reality! This is self-deceiving at best. If we do not take a stand today, what is going to happen to make us more courageous a year from now? Besides, each year we wait, the government takes an ever-greater bite of the earnings of working Americans and the government gets bigger and becomes harder to trim in the future. Mr. President, another big mistake we made that helped create the mess we find ourselves in today is that we failed to pass the ``good government'' legislation I proposed in 1997. I have repeatedly asked our leaders to honor the commitment they made during consideration of last year's disaster relief legislation to bring up legislation that provides an automatic CR at last year's funding level for remaining appropriations pending at end of the session. This would keep pressure on appropriators to complete their business and keep all of us in the process--not just a select few. It would also keep us free from political blackmail: ``If you do not give me this, then I will shut down the government and blame you for being heartless and ineffective.'' It happened before, and Republicans were afraid it could happen again, and the recklessness of this White House for political purposes is a reality. Had we such a process in effect this year that would not allow the government to shut down, we would have completed the business of the nation on September 30, and not been forced back here to vote on October 20. This path, not the path we are currently on, would have been the responsible path to take. Mr. President, I therefore was forced to cast a ``no'' vote on this legislation because I am deeply disappointed in this business-as-usual attitude, and deeply disgusted with the process the pork-laden, backdoor spending, and the budget gimmicks. Americans deserve better. And let us put Congress and this President on notice, we will use every Senate rule available not to let this happen again next year. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. GRAMS. Will the Senator from Missouri yield for an unanimous consent request?

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from Missouri I be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the compromise H-1B visa legislation included in the omnibus appropriations bill. I am pleased a compromise was achieved that has now passed the House by a vote of more than two to one. With the demand in this country rising for this category of highly skilled workers currently in short supply in the U.S., I believe there is a need to temporarily increase this visa category. The engine now driving our successful economy is being fueled in large part by growth in the information technology industry. I am told these high tech industries account for about one-third of our real economic growth. According to the Information Technology Industry Data Book, 1998-2008, the domestic revenue from the U.S. information technology industry is projected to be $703 billion for the year 2000. With this sudden surge in industry growth, the United States has found itself unprepared to supply the large numbers of math and engineering graduates necessary to support this growth. In fact, American schools are producing fewer math and engineering graduates than in the past. We have been forced to address this current imbalance by temporarily allowing needed high-tech workers to work in our country. This is necessary until we can develop the expertise we need in the country. This compromise bill will do just that. For the next 3 years, additional workers from foreign countries will be allowed to work here. During this time, Americans will be educated to fill these jobs through scholarships and job training financed by fees collected from employers petitioning for the current foreign workers. We must do more to ensure our work force meet the demands of a growing, more sophisticated economy--that we have the educated work force we need to continue to prosper and provide better jobs for Americans. There are other important issues covered by the bill including increased penalties for violations of law by employers, random investigations of employers sponsoring H-1B visas by the Department of Labor and protection of ``whistleblowing'' employees. I think this compromise is something that will help us now and in the future. I urge its passage.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the important issue of hunger in America. We often hear about hunger as a global problem affecting many people every day. Many in our own country warn us of a growing hunger problem in America. One of my Minnesota constituents, Dr. Joseph Ioffe, is a former Russian professor of economics and challenges this thinking from his first hand knowledge of hunger in Russia. He has written an editorial that suggests our real problem is one that involves the quality of diet for low-income families rather than starvation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Ioffe's article be printed in the Record. Is There Really Hunger in America (By Joseph Ioffe) Another day, another letter in my mailbox from public organizations fighting hunger in America. And every letter is overloaded with general statements and emotional appeals but lacks facts and specifics. Here is one from Larry Jones, president of Feed The Children, an Oklahoma City-based organization: ``I am writing on behalf of a very special group that faces death every hour of every day of the year. It is the 15 million hungry children in the United States. Every 53 minutes a hungry child dies.'' A horrible picture--it looks like Rwanda or North Korea. Hard to believe that the U.S. government is providing food aid to many other countries while letting millions of its own people starve to death. So I wrote a letter to Jones, asking him for specifics and, in particular, to furnish the names and addresses, at random, of children who died from starvation, say, last year. As it appeared from Jones' response, he personally had never witnessed such cases, never kept any records of the victims of hunger, but relied on statistics from other organizations. After all, he said, his mission was not in studying facts about hunger but raising money for children who, he believed, were starving in the U.S.--which he has been doing for years by hitting mailboxes all around the country. So I decided to go to the source Jones referred to. In a publication by the Children's Defense Fund, a Washington, DC- based public organization, I found the numbers but defined differently: 15 million children living in poverty . . . every 53 minutes a child dies from poverty. . . . It appeared that Jones did not just borrow the statistics from CDF but adjusted it to the purpose of his own understanding. Poverty does not necessarily mean hunger. In the U.S. the poverty lines is set up fairly high. Suffice it to say that a family living at the poverty level in America has a higher in-come than the median income of the same size family in 150 other countries throughout the world including Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. But let us put aside the difference between hunger and poverty. The point is that the CDF ``death from poverty'' statistics were unfounded as well. The official mortality statistics are based on the records of hospitals, and do no operate with such cause of death as ``poverty.'' So any responsible statement about children dying from poverty is supposed to be supported and substantiated by special studies establishing the link between medical and social causes. Nothing like that could be found in the CDF publications. Small wonder that my requests for information of this kind was just ignored by CDF. And here is another letter, this one from Christine Vladimiroff, president of Second Harvest, a food bank network based in Chicago; ``Tonight millions of Americans won't get enough to eat . . .'' Again, no specifics about numbers, not the slightest attempt to prove that is real. Instead, attached to the letter was a picture of the Statute of Liberty holding the ``Will work for food'' poster, it was ridiculous. Those men and women with such posters on the busy city streets, idlers and drifters, don't care about work and food at all. They are just playing a trick on compassionate motorists. At the red light, the motorists reach out for their pocket-books and hand out a dollar or two to the ``hungry'' guys. None of them has ever accepted any offer to work. But their day's ``work'' with the poster usually brings in $100 or more and the money is being spent, right away, for drugs and alcohol. As for food, they get it at the soup kitchens. In the 30's soup kitchens served real hungry people, victims of the bad economic situation. Nowadays in America they are mostly a feeding place for people of anti-social behavior like idlers, drifters, drug abusers and alcoholics. Now the old saying, ``he who does not work, does not eat.'' is out of date. So is there hunger in America. It is common knowledge that the U.S. is the world leader in food production, that the food prices, in relation to the wages, are the lowest, that the food stamps program combined with free distribution of basic nutritional products from the state reserves for the low-income families provides a safeguard against any threat of hunger in America. Nobody is starving in this country, and, moreover, nobody is dying from starvation. The real problem is not feeding the hungry but improving the quality of the daily diet of the low-income families, extending their diet beyond a certain number of plain products and bringing it, gradually, to the modern nutritional standards. That is where the efforts of the charitable organizations should be directed. Those ambitious activities who are trying to impress the public with sensations and high drama, talking about millions of starving Americans facing death, don't do any good to the country.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, about two weeks ago, a list of medical device companies was printed in the Congressional Record which indicated they were non-responsive to The Food and Drug Administration's request for Year 200 compliance status. As Chairman of the Senate Medical Technology Caucus, I believe it is important my colleagues have the latest on manufacturers which have been responsive to the FDA's request for information on the Year 2000 compliance status of their products Companies were asked by the FDA to indicate in their response the following: The medical devices marketed and have sold are not Year 2000 vulnerable; medical devices marketed and sold are all year 2000 compliant; the manufacturer is providing specific information regarding those products which are not compliant or their assessment is currently incomplete; or the manufacturer is working on an assessment and will post the results. Mr. President, there are many sectors of our economy which still need to address the potential for problems in the year 2000, but I am pleased that a vast majority of medical device companies in the United States have responded to the FDA on year 2000 compliance status and deserve to be recognized for having done so. I would like to mention specifically thirteen companies mistakenly listed in the Congressional Record as being unresponsive to the FDA's request. These manufacturers have responded to the FDA's request for Year 2000 compliance status: Apothecary Incorporated, Augustine Medical Incorporated, Braemar Corporation, Dantec Medical Incorporated, Diametrics Medical Incorporated, Keomed Incorporated, Medtronic PS Medical Medtronic Bio-medicus, Medtronic Neurological, Prime Ideas Incorporated, Puritan Bennett Corporation, Timm Research Company, and Williams Sound Corporation. Mr. President, while this list only represents companies based in Minnesota, the FDA has compiled a much larger listing of companies which are or have addressed year 2000 issues on their website located at www.fda.gov.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator from Utah and look forward to working with you early next year.

Mr. GRAMS. I rise in support of the WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act Conference Report adopted by the Senate on October 8, and commend the Senator from Utah for his efforts in crafting legislation that will greatly aid American copyright owners and users in the digital world. This legislation is of great importance to the citizens of Minnesota, including many companies that produce copyrighted materials as well as the hard-working men and women employed by them. As the Senator form Utah is also aware, however, I have a great interest in Senate action to protect database owners, to continue the availability of quality and reliable products and services for users here and abroad. Earlier this summer, I introduced S. 2291 to provide this protection, and worked to include this language into the WIPO Implementing legislation. I greatly regret this legislation could not be included as part of this Conference Report. Would the Senator from Utah and his colleagues on the Judiciary Committee agree to take up this issue as a priority item early in the 106th Congress? I believe we need fair and balanced database protection legislation, similar to S.2291.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about some of the impending debate going on right now to try to close out these final days of this Congress. As you know, most of the talk is centered around the issue of education. While I was sitting here listening, I thought really that most Members of Congress that are up for election were back home campaigning. But I guess they are not, because some have been here this afternoon campaigning on the floor of the Senate. I heard today some of the outlines of what was basically their very liberal agenda, which did not pass some very radical proposals that this Congress did not accept. They talked about delays and about the lack of work in this session, but they didn't mention that this Congress has required more cloture motions just to try to get issues onto the floor. We have also heard, I think, some real tall tales of revision of the history of budget negotiations, et cetera, talking about how much credit should go to this President for the current economic benefits that we are reaping. But somehow they forget a lot of the work done during the 1980s, like the tax cut, deregulation of many industries, the productivity of workers and companies that have basically produced more revenue for this Government to allow us to balance the budget. It really hasn't been anything that this President has done to balance the budget. If you talked about this big budget plan offered in 1993--which I am proud to say not one Republican supported because the centerpiece of that plan was just like every other Democratic proposal over the last 40 years--that was to raise taxes on the American people in order to try to solve what they saw as a crisis or problem, but the real intent was to enlarge and expand the size and scope of Government, to bring more control to Washington. This plan raised $263 billion in new taxes--the largest tax increase in history in this country--which has now taken the average American family to the highest levels of taxation in history, with over 42 percent for the average American going to taxes. That means you work just about as much time to support Government as you are allowed to work to raise your family, to support your family--health care, educational needs, food, clothing, shelter, et cetera. I have to say that if it was such a great idea to raise taxes and that solves the problems, I don't know why we don't simply say let's raise taxes to 100 percent of what you make so the Government can be real sure that it takes care of every need that you have, and we can be on the floor here bragging next year, or the year after and the year after how great Washington has done. When you see some of the waste, fraud and abuse in this Government, the bureaucracy--and we can sit here and say that Washington can handle problems better than the American family. Mr. President, that kind of baffles the mind. Some people think raising taxes and sending more money to Washington is a godsend, and it has somehow taken care of all the problems in this country, when I don't think too many people out there would want Washington to be their own financial adviser when they can't even count on Social Security to be there. I wanted to express more concern and basically disappointment over what appears to be an eleventh-hour attempt now by the President to force straitjacket education policy on our Nation's schools and children. The President brought this up a year ago in his State of the Union Address. There has been no legislation or ideas brought to the floor on increasing the size or putting more teachers into the classroom. Everybody can agree that education is probably one of the most important things that we need in this country. Again, I don't know if people want to give that control over to Washington and have them hiring teachers, telling us who we can hire and fire in the classroom. They would go from there to what the curriculum is going to be. Then they would tell us what to teach the children and what books to read. When you talk about revision of history and what we have heard here on the budget issues alone, can you imagine what our textbooks are going to be like when we hear some apologizing for Christopher Columbus? Can you imagine the difference in the wealth and lifestyle of this great country? In some of our textbooks, Christopher Columbus is being viewed as somebody who did things wrong. Sure, there were problems back then, and there were new diseases brought to this continent. But to say now that we should be apologizing for what Christopher Columbus did, or maybe apologize for how this country ended World War II--nobody wanted to use the bomb, but to rewrite the stories of the Enola Gay and say America was somehow responsible for World War II, we didn't start the war. We had to find a way to end it. It was not a pleasant way to do it, but it did save lives from the day-to-day fighting. There would not have only been thousands more American soldiers who would have died, in addition to the thousands who died in World War II, but thousands more Japanese civilians would have been killed as well. Mr. President, President Clinton and others in Congress have decided to renew their one-size-fits-all argument that they know how best to spend education dollars for each and every student, in each and every school in the country, from the inner city to rural classrooms. Education for all is a top priority, as I mentioned. All of us have the top priority of education for our children and grandchildren. That politicians are using it today as a last-ditch political coverup, I believe, is beneath contempt. The central charge being made is that the Republican-led Congress hasn't met the demands for increases in education spending. This simply is not the case. According to the Senate Budget Committee, in the last three budget cycles during which Republicans have controlled Congress, this Congress has provided $79 billion, or 97 percent of the President's education requests. In other words, in 5 of the last 6 years, there has been less than a 3-percent difference between the President's request for education outlays and what Congress has provided. And to suggest otherwise is nothing but pure politics. As we have seen time and time again in Washington, it is very easy to just go out there and try to up the ante. When I say that, what they are trying to do out here is bribe the American people with your money. In other words, they just want to take a little bit more of our money to Washington, raise your taxes, erode your tax bases, take more money away from your tax base to support your own local schools so they can up the ante out here in Washington, because Washington can't give you anything. It can't enrich your school districts until it takes something from you. So it has to take money from you to bring it to Washington and promise you something that they are going to give back, but with a lot of strings--and by the way, a lot less money, because by the time you support the buildings and bureaucracy here in Washington, you are only getting pennies on the dollar back. Somehow, they promise you something, but they don't tell you who is going to pay for it. Sure, some might be getting more money back than they paid, but most Americans are going to pay more in taxes to get this type of help from Washington. When you give that control to Washington, you as parents lose control at home over what decisions are going to be made, whether it is over teachers, curriculum, et cetera. So upping the ante here, its easy for somebody to try to outbid the other, saying let's do $3 billion or $5 billion or $7 billion--it is all your money. So it is easy to up the ante so as to be able to complain that Congress isn't spending enough. We have seen this painfully played out, for example, in making emergency moneys available for our Nation's farmers. One tell-tale sign that the administration's proposals are for ``show'' only is that they cannot be met without breaking the budget. I heard here a while ago that the spending bidding wars the President is talking about right now is not going to break the budget, that it is all offset. I don't know where it is coming from. I haven't seen the offsets. The only offset I have seen is that it is going to come out of the budget surplus. Something in the neighborhood of $20 billion of surplus money is already being spent by this administration. He is trying to twist the arms of the Republican Congress to go along with this looming threat of a possible Government shutdown, or saying we don't care about education, or we don't care about the American farmer. But somehow Republicans wanted to give a tax break because some of the surplus money is from larger revenues due to income growth. We say, if we are overbilling the American people, maybe we should give some money back. They say, you can't do that, and they say they think about Social Security first. That tax cut would have been about $7 billion in the year 1999. That was too much money to give $7 billion back, which would amount to basically less than $1 a month per person in this country. That is a huge tax cut--less than $1 a month--$7 billion? They couldn't do that. But yet $20 billion of that surplus can be spent. And they are saying, ``Well, we are not taking this out of the surplus; we are going to offset it.'' I would like to know where they are offsetting it, and, if they are offsetting it in some programs, I would like to know where those programs are going to be able to get along with less money, after all of this year trying to work out budgets through our committees. The President knows this. The only offset proposal has been through increased tobacco taxes. That is what we heard earlier this year. That is how the President was going to pay for 100,000 new teachers. That is how the President was going to pay for rebuilding new schools. And that, by the way, is the prerogative, the responsibility, the opportunity, of the local school boards and school districts. They should be doing this--not the Federal Government, because the Federal Government then has to make money from them to give back to them. But, in the meantime, they lose a lot of control and authority. But when there was no tobacco bill this year-- again, this is one of the radical liberal agendas that did not pass this Congress that we have heard complaints about. Again, I am very proud to have voted against that piece of legislation. But there is no money there. So, if there is no money from the tobacco legislation, now the President is saying we are going to have to dip into something else. But it is going to come out of the surplus, and that is the extra money that you have worked for, which Washington now has and won't give back. Congress has rejected that plan. The President has now proposed an alternative method of financing his proposal. Another giveaway as to the political nature of this last-minute demagoguing is the plain fact that simply spending more money in Washington for the sake of spending more money does nothing to solve the education problems in this country. I think the President should pay attention to the fact that it is going to take a little more time and a little more effort to solve these problems than he has been willing to devote in the past. If this is such an important issue, which I think it is, I think we need to have Congress to bring it before our committee. Let's sit down and debate it and lay it all out and see where the advantages are, how much it is going to cost and where the money is going to come from, rather than the President trying to again break arms and jam it into an omnibus budget bill. In fact, spending money blindly may ultimately do more harm than good. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, The nation's largest study examining the use of computers in schools has concluded that the $5 billion being spent each year on educational technology is actually hurting children in many cases because the computers aren't being put to good use. While I support teaching out kids to use technology, and computers are an important part of this, I do not believe high-tech classrooms are the only priority. And, while spending great sums of money on technology-education is feel-good politics for those who spend the money, it can come, as we've seen, at the expense of our kids. Last year, the American Management Association found that two-thirds of managers said new employees had strong computer skills, but that only 29 percent said the employees could write competently. I am always reminded of a story, because I think it suggests some very serious education problems in this country: A small school district in northern Minnesota was being given an award because their students had ranked among the top in the scores that year. In the test scores out there, their students had ranked among the top. Somebody came up, and while they were going through some of the records, they noticed that this school district had some of the lowest costs per pupil in the State. So the question was asked: ``How can you account for having higher test scores when you have had some of the lowest spending per pupil year?'' The principal said, ``I don't know how to explain it.'' He said, ``All we can basically do is offer our kids the basics.'' In other words, they were teaching them to read, to write, and to do arithmetic rather than the ``feel good'' diversity type programs that we see teachers now hamstrung with today. They can spend less than half of their costs on the basics, because the Government dictates today already preclude them from teaching their kids the basics. When they talk about money in this country, that we are not spending enough money--we spend more on education; it is only second to health care. About $450 billion a year goes to education. That is more than any country in the world spends per student per year. In fact, if you look at the numbers, the United States spends nearly twice as much per student per year as any country in the world. Yet we rank 14 out of 14 of the industrialized nations in the world in test scores when it comes to math and sciences and the ability to write. So, if other countries can spend less and get more, where is the problem? The problem isn't the amount of money that we are spending on education, it is how that money is being used. And now, to say if we could only come back and throw some more money at it--I will give you an example. Back in the 1950s, if we adjusted to inflation today, the States were spending an average of about $600 per student per year in education. Today, 1998, we are spending well over $6,000 per student per year--from $600 in 1950 to over $6,000 today. The District of Columbia spends over $10,000. In Minnesota, the city of Minneapolis spends over $10,000 per student and yet has some of the lowest test scores in the State. So, again, is it the money? Or is it some of the ways that we are teaching our children, or some of the programs, or the time that our kids are being given to study the basics in order to learn? I think the ones who really come out on the short end of this are the students. While we are up here debating all of this, saying that we need all this curriculum, that we need all this money, that we need all this stuff, our kids are graduating with some of the lowest test scores around the world, without the ability to compete in the next generation. They are the ones being shortchanged while a lot of this debate is going on here. I think those problems show that our students are not learning the basics despite our spending efforts. Over the last 30 years, as I have mentioned, we have increasingly spent more of the Nation's money on education. Nominal spending has risen eightfold since 1969. Furthermore, a recent Wall Street Journal article reports that in the past 45 years the average pupil-teacher ratio in this country has already fallen by 35 percent. In the past 45 years, the student-teacher ratio has fallen 35 percent. Yet, our test scores have fallen with it. The SAT scores have stagnated, and the international tests have put them at the bottom. In Math and Science General Knowledge tests, United States students ranked 16th out of 21 in science, behind Russia and Slovenia but ahead of Cyprus. In math, United States students ranked 19th out of 21 countries, behind Russia, Slovenia, Hungary, and Lithuania. America already outspends every other country per child on education, and ranked among the bottom of all. Clearly, simply spending more money is not the answer to better learning. If it were, we certainly wouldn't have these sorts of test scores to show for it. The answers to our education problems do not lie in ``wired classrooms.'' No computer can take the place of a good teacher. Instead, I believe that the answers to learning are found in each and every teacher-child relationship, in each and every classroom. There is no amount of money that can replace a teacher who cares and wants to reach kids, and has the freedom to do so. This freedom comes with the authority to make decisions based on local needs--not dictates from Washington, not more control from Washington, not more strings attached to the classrooms from Washington. I have continually supported plans which would return money and also return control from Washington to parents, to teachers, and to local school districts. After all, I think they know best how to spend their education dollars. Plans such as the Education Savings and School Excellence Act would have been an important step toward accomplishing this. This bipartisan education reform legislation would have allowed low- and middle-income families to open education savings accounts to pay for the particular education needs of their children--from textbooks to tutoring to tuition. Unfortunately, for families and students, President Clinton vetoed this legislation. There has been an agenda dealing with education in this Congress this year. It has gone nowhere, because the President and those Members on that side of the aisle --the Democrats--have disagreed and have stalled the efforts, or have vetoed it with the President's plan, claiming that it would divert resources from public education. This is false. The Education Savings and School Excellence Act would not have touched 1 cent of Federal spending for education--would not have touched 1 cent of the surplus either. It would have come from parents being able to set aside more of their own money so that they could decide how they wanted to spend it for their children's education--whether they needed additional tutoring, or tuition to go to a private or parochial school, or whatever the parent decided they needed. But they vetoed that plan. The reason the President vetoed this legislation--and I will be generous with this inference--is because he thinks he knows what is best for each and every student if America. But I would ask my colleagues to reflect on this for just a moment and to see if they aren't forced to come to the same conclusion: To think that the U.S. Government should impose a rigid generic formula on day-to-day decisions for all students is nothing short of frightening. So, Mr. President, I thank you very much for the time, and I hope we can work out these questions in the remaining days. Some of the questions now do not relate to the amount of money being spent on education but is being narrowed down to who is spending it, who controls it. I think the Republicans have made it very clear that if the money is to be spent, it should go to local school districts so that the parents and the teachers and local officials can decide how that money should be spent, not Washington. But on the other side, they would rather have the money come here to Washington so they can disperse it, so they can tell parents, teachers, local school districts and local officials how those dollars should be spent. I think Americans would rather have those local options left to themselves because this is incrementalism at its best. If you let Washington get its foot in the door, the camel's nose under the tent, it is only going to be a matter of time before they want more and more control over education in this country. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the work of domestic violence shelters and centers in my home state of Minnesota. As my colleagues may know, October is recognized as ``National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.'' This is a time to strengthen our resolve to end domestic violence and sexual assault. More importantly, it is also a time to remember those who have suffered and died as a result of these terrible crimes. I am very concerned about the number of domestic violence incidents in our society. Americans should not have to live in fear of being abused by anyone, let alone a family member. In my view, community-based domestic violence shelters and centers should be commended for their support for victims of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. Their efforts to provide shelter, counseling, and assistance to battered women and children have helped families and communities escape domestic violence. I ask unanimous consent the names of these Minnesota organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take the remaining part of my time this morning to talk about a subject I have worked on for the 6 years I have been in Congress, and that is trying to raise the awareness of the issue of taxes in this country, that we are now taxed at an all-time high, and that Americans need and deserve some form of tax relief. So, Mr. President, I wanted to take time to rise today to express my disappointment over the Senate's failure to fulfill its obligations to the taxpayers to consider and to pass any kind of tax relief bill this year. Fiscally, socially, morally, this is a tremendous mistake, and I believe my colleagues are wrong. I am equally disappointed at President Clinton's threats to veto this important legislation had it passed. It is the same case as last year when, in the State of Virginia, when then-candidate for Governor Gilmore was pledging a tax cut of his own. The President said at that time that Virginians would be ``selfish'' to vote for tax relief. This year he says ``to squander money on a tax cut''--again, that is how President Clinton is describing our attempt this year to let working Americans keep more of their money--``to squander money on a tax cut.'' Unfortunately, there is a pattern here, and apparently neither President Clinton nor the rest of Washington has changed their mind. Both want as much money as they can get from the taxpayers, so they can spend it the way they think is best. According to Webster's Dictionary, the definition of ``squander'' is ``to spend extravagantly or foolishly.'' I say to President Clinton that I am shocked that you actually believe taxpayers squander their salaries in this way and that only Washington can spend the money wisely. With such highly placed disregard for the fiscal abilities of the American people, I believe it is no wonder that Washington has been unwilling to give the taxpayers more control over their own dollars. Let me focus first this morning, Mr. President, on the budget surplus. In a recent series of high-profile celebrations, folks here in Washington could hardly wait to rush to the cameras to claim credit for the $70 billion budget surplus, watching them slap their own backs with their hands. Politicians have been humming happy ditties all around this town while approving big-ticket spending items right and left. Meanwhile, those same politicians pontificate about preserving the surplus to ``save Social Security first.'' The truth is, the White House didn't generate this surplus, nor did the U.S. House or the Senate. The politicians have no rightful claim to the surplus. Washington should not be allowed to sit around and dream up ways to spend even more money because a surplus has arrived. Working Americans are responsible for propelling our economy forward and generating this budget surplus, and they deserve to get it back as tax relief. There should be no debate. Taxpayers have overpaid, and, like any other time a person overpays for anything, they ought to get it back. If you go into a store and pay too much for an item, you expect to get the change back. But somehow in Washington, if you overpay, that is just too bad, Washington wants to pocket your money. The surplus is the product of the recent revenue surge--a surge, I believe, generated directly by increased productivity and increased individual income tax payments, including the payment of capital gains taxes as investors took advantage of the lower capital gains rate-- again, proving that reducing the tax rates can actually increase revenues, because the economy will grow. Very little of the surplus comes from policy changes, however, related to deficit reduction. On the other hand, there are others in this Chamber who claim there is no surplus, that if we subtract the dollars Washington has routinely raided from the Social Security trust fund, the Government is still in the red. Therefore, they oppose using the unified budget surplus for any kind of tax relief. Mr. President, they are right on the facts, but I believe they are dead wrong about the conclusion. Washington's big spenders are the ones who have exhausted every penny of the Social Security surplus. They have already exhausted every penny of the Social Security surplus on other Government programs. They have wish lists. The taxpayers shouldn't be denied relief from a stifling tax burden just because Washington has managed to juggle the Nation's bank accounts. I urge my colleagues to review the CBO's ``August Economic and Budget Outlook,'' which shows precisely where revenues will come from in the next 10 years. The data shows that the greatest share of the projected budget surplus comes directly from income taxes paid by the taxpayers, not the FICA taxes. In 1998, individual income, corporate, and estate taxes make up nearly 80 percent of total tax revenue growth, while the share of FICA tax is about 20 percent. General tax revenues are expected to grow by $723 billion, or 60 percent, over the next 10 years. What I am saying, Mr. President, is that the taxpayers generated the surplus, outside the money earmarked for Social Security, and the Government has no right to absorb it. It is only moral and fair to return at least a part of it to the taxpayers. If we don't return at least a portion of the surplus to the taxpayers, and do it soon, Washington is going to spend it, leaving nothing then for tax relief for the vitally important task of actually trying to preserve and save Social Security. Such spending will only enlarge the Government, and if the Government is enlarged today, it will make it even more expensive to support it in the future. Mr. President, the situation we find ourselves in today reflects two very fundamentally different principles of government: Are we going to embrace tax cuts for working Americans, or are we going to embrace more spending for social engineering? I am proud to serve here as a member of the Republican Party--a party which, since its creation, has firmly held that a person owns himself, a person owns his labor, and a person owns the fruits of his labor. We believe the pursuit of individual and States rights and a restricted role for the Federal Government create economic growth and prosperity. The two parties have traditionally offered a marked choice--a choice between the Democratic Party belief that people should work for the Government or our vision of a Government that works for the people. One party believes that it has a right to spend every penny that it can take from working Americans--again echoing the President's words that people are ``selfish'' to want to cut taxes or to ``squander money on a tax cut.'' The Republican Party, on the other hand, believes Government should be limited only to that amount needed for necessary services, and this is, indeed, a choice between two futures: a choice between small Government or big Government, a choice between fiscal discipline or irresponsibility, a choice between individual freedom or servitude to a bigger Government, responsibility or dependency, long-term economic prosperity for the Nation or some short-term benefits for the special interest groups and the politicians who feed them. Mr. President, that is exactly why the American taxpayers ushered in an era of Republican congressional leadership in 1994, a new majority that pledged to provide fiscal discipline, individual freedom, personal responsibility, and prosperity for all people. Unfortunately, Congress has so far delivered on only a small portion of that pledge, blocked by the competing forces of tax-and-spend versus tax relief and personal empowerment. The choice I spoke of a moment ago has become blurred as both parties fight in a misguided effort to purchase some measure of the people's trust. They think you can run out and with their own money buy the trust of the American people. But in doing so, Congress has allowed annual Federal spending to increase from $1.5 trillion in 1994 to $1.73 trillion today. In fact, Federal spending has never been higher. During the same period, the national debt has grown from $4.9 trillion to $5.7 trillion, an $810 billion increase in our national debt. Mr. President, take a look at the current debate over the supplemental spending to be included in the omnibus appropriations bill. A week ago, we were hearing encouraging words that much of this would be offset by cuts in other programs. Now, as we careen toward adjournment, it appears there will be as much as $20 billion in emergency spending--out of the surplus, of course--and the report this morning is that there could be even more as we work and maybe have to give in to the administration demands for more money to be spent in order to avoid a Government shutdown. Mr. President, despite a $70 billion budget surplus, total taxation is at an all-time high. The tax relief Congress enacted last year does not go nearly far enough. I am proud we had the courage to enact the $500 per-child tax credit, which I authored in 1993, but when our tax bill overall returns to the taxpayers only one cent for every dollar they send to Washington--especially now, during a time of surpluses--I believe we have failed them miserably. Working Americans see their earnings taxed, and then re-taxed repeatedly. Washington taxes their income when they first earn it. It is then subject to excise taxes when they spend it. And their savings and investments are also taxed. And when they die, the Government is the first to put their hands into the estate. Farmers and small business owners cannot easily pass their businesses on to their families because the huge estate and gift taxes still exist. The government imposes a 43 percent tax on all American couples simply because they are married. Even seniors--retired people in our country, our senior citizens--they have their earned benefits taxed. If the 105th Congress was supposed to be about cutting taxes and forever reforming the tax system--and I believe that was our mandate-- the 105th Congress did not complete the job. Our progress has fizzled not because our efforts have lost the support of the people--in fact, two thirds of the American people supported tax relief during the 1996 elections, and broad tax relief still enjoys overwhelming support today--but because some in Congress have lost their backbones. They have lost the courage to make a stand on principle and not abandon their moral compass at the first sign of resistance. In too many instances, this Congress has become a willing collaborator of President Clinton's tax-and-spend policies. We have helped to build a bigger, more expensive government, and in doing so have abandoned our promise of tax relief for working Americans. Mr. President, each time Congress makes a promise to the taxpayers-- and then deserts them--Congress comforts itself by saying it would come back next year and enact an even larger tax cut. This is self-deceiving at best. If we do not take a stand today, what is going to happen to make us more courageous a year from now? Besides, each year we wait, the Government takes an ever-greater bite of the earnings of working Americans and the Government gets bigger and becomes harder to trim in the future. Another point I would like to make, Mr. President, is that a tax cut is not spending. Only in convoluted bookkeeping practices of Washington would we consider a cut in tax rates to be spending. The reason is simple: first, it is the taxpayers' money that supports and keeps the Government running; second, tax relief not only ensures a healthy and strong economy, but also generates more revenues for the Government. In a recent study, economists at the Institute for Policy Innovation concluded that the House-passed tax relief bill of $80 billion--an unforgivably moderate tax relief measure, in my view--would add an additional $300 billion to our GDP and create more than 135,000 jobs. This economic growth would in turn generate about $80 billion in additional revenues to the Federal Government. Mr. President, when it comes to federal spending, Washington rarely asks how the American taxpayers can afford to give up more of their income to the government, and how such excessive spending will affect a working family's budget and finances. Equally upsetting is the fact that when it comes to tax relief, Washington is always reluctant to act. Oh, they say it is easy to give an election year tax cut. That is impossible around here. It is hard to get a tax cut. It is easy to spend; it is very hard to give tax relief. Congress even goes so far as to compel tax cut advocates to pay for any tax relief via Washington's PAYGO rule. That is a rule that requires increasing taxes on some or lowering entitlement benefits in order to cut tax relief to others. Nothing is more ridiculous than the requirement of the PAYGO rule. We must repeal it so we can do the job of shrinking the size of the Government and let working families keep more of the money, the money they earn in order to spend it on their priorities--not Washington priorities. One major reason for the failure of this year's tax relief bill is that Washington's spin doctors took full advantage of Americans' anxiety about Social Security. ``Save Social Security first'' is just another Washington lie. Mark my word, Mr. President, Social Security crisis or not, Washington has spent, and will continue to spend, surplus dollars whenever it can for its pet programs. Since 1983, Washington has raided more than $700 billion from the trust funds for non-Social Security programs, and Congress approved that spending every time. In the next 5 years, the Federal Government will raid another $600 billion from the Social Security trust funds. Those politicians who insist on using the surplus for Social Security have voted for most, if not all, of those spending bills, and so it is those politicians who in the last 15 years have stripped the trust funds of any surplus. Mr. President, despite the rhetoric about saving Social Security, few have come up with a concrete plan to save it. The problem is that by law, the Social Security surplus has to be put into Treasury securities. That means Washington can legally use the money to fund its favorite non-Social Security programs, rendering these ``assets'' little more than Treasury IOUs. Unless we change the law, Washington will continue to abuse Social Security until it goes broke. I agree that reforming Social Security to ensure its solvency is vitally important. Any projected budget surplus should be used partly for that purpose. In fact, I have introduced a bill to just do that. Yet, I believe strongly that the surplus alone will not save Social Security and therefore fundamental reform is needed to change it from a pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded one. Mr. President, the States offer us an excellent model of how we should use the budget surplus. In recent years, many Governors have cut taxes and shrunk the size of their governments, and in the process have turned budget deficits into surpluses. They are now using those surpluses to provide even further tax relief. Some States, such as Missouri and Florida, even have constitutional or statutory requirements to return to taxpayers any revenues that exceed income growth. The States have proved that if government performs only legitimate and necessary functions, and does so without waste, it can leave much more money in the pockets of the people. And it is the people who can best spend their money, whether it is for their children's health care, saving for a college education, giving more to their church and charities, or just helping to set something aside for their retirement. Now, Mr. President, back to the question of the budget surplus and who should spend this money--the Government or the workers who earned it? In conclusion, Washington's tax and spending policies have systematically ignored our children's future and severely undermined the basic functions of the family. We must abandon those policies and help restore the family to an economic position capable of fulfilling its vital responsibilities. In answer to my own question, we must provide American families with meaningful tax relief, allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned money. It is their money. Let us give it back. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I object.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, January 1999 will be celebrated throughout the United States as National Opticians Month. I am pleased to inform my colleagues that one of my constituents, Gary R. Aiken of Minnetonka, Minnesota, is president of the Opticians Association of America, which is sponsoring the observance. Nearly all Americans aged 65 or older require some help to see their best and sixty percent of Americans wear eyeglasses or contact lenses. Opticians, skilled in fitting and dispensing eyeglasses and contact lenses, provide the expert assistance we need to make the most of our vision. Technology has brought us literally thousands of possible combinations of eyeglass frames and lenses and an array of contact lenses. Dispensing opticians play a pivotal role in guiding eyewear customers to the combination which exactly fits their need. Through formal education programs, voluntary national certification and mandatory licensing in many states, and programs of continuing education, dispensing opticians acquire the skills and competence to correctly, efficiently and effectively fill eyewear prescriptions. At the same time, retail opticians are an important part of our nation's small business community and provide the competitive balance which keeps eyewear affordable for all Americans. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the important role of dispensing opticians as they assist us all in making the most of our precious eyesight. I commend them for their efforts and congratulate Gary Aiken and the members of the Opticians Association of America for their accomplishments.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I thank Senator Nickles also. Mr. President, I rise to support the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. While I continue to have serious questions about the general concept that threatening to impose sanctions on a country considered a ``country of particular concern'' will enable us to make progress toward ending religious persecution, I have co-sponsored this legislation, considerable progress has been made to redraft the legislation in a far more positive manner. Since it has significant support, it was important to ensure we will pass a version that had a better chance to work--not one that could have been counterproductive. The Nickles compromise to the Wolf-Specter version I believe is far superior, and has addressed the concerns of many religious leaders. There was a fear the original legislation could have actually harmed believers in other countries. Let me repeat--those who served as missionaries and promoters of religious freedom abroad told me this legislation could actually have been counterproductive. In fact, some of them questioned a government involvement in this debate at all, other than through normal diplomatic efforts--or, even better than the efforts of religious leaders and missionaries themselves, who have been able to make progress on their own. Yet, many Washington stakeholders, supported an approach, to publicly humiliate and punish countries which meet our definition of ``a country of particular concern'' that is engaging in ``particularly severe violations'' of religious persecution by publishing a list of them and imposing automatic sanctions. Mr. President, I didn't believe this approach would work. I didn't believe that this was the right way to address religious persecution. Fortunately, many religious leaders have stepped forward, often severely criticized, to tell us they did not believe the original approach was the right approach. Senator Hagel and I asked the Foreign Relations Committee to hold a hearing on the legislation, a hearing that would allow some of those who believed the legislation could have been counterproductive to testify. It is ironic that when we sought changes to the legislation, again changes suggested by those who had served abroad, I was publicly attacked by some individuals claiming to understand how best to address religious persecution. And some of these individuals, I believe, may have placed their own personal agendas ahead of the very people that we, through this bill and this legislation, want to help in these countries. Mr. President, I strongly commend my colleague, Senator Nickles, for his understanding, his patience and his dedication to work with us on this legislation. I know he made many revisions to the bill which were recommended by myself and others that we thought would help change the focus from an approach that was more negative to one that was very positive and had a better opportunity to work. There is far more emphasis now on working with countries, working with them quietly to try to end those violations of religious freedom, and to working with our allies in order to try to reach multilateral solutions rather than a far less effective unilateral approach and solution. The revised Nickles substitute before us, I think, gives the President more flexibility regarding how efforts to achieve religious freedom are reported and that we talk not only about the progress that must be made, but also the progress that has been made. The report that discusses the progress that needs to be made is less inflammatory and it does not link any suggested sanctions to each country of particular concern. The President's waiver authority has been also expanded to permit a waiver if an action, including sanctions, would be counterproductive. And just this week the waiver authority has been further expanded to a national interest waiver which is significant progress, I believe, to improve this bill. A waiver could be communicated to Congress the same day it is exercised rather than the earlier notice requirement. One concern of mine, however, does still remain, and it relates to the commission which provides its own report on religious freedom. While the commission should be advisory using, I believe, detailed employees from the Government, language was added late in the negotiations that awarded the commission $3 million for each of the 2 years for its own staff. That is a lot of staff when ``free'' staff was available. Now, I agree that the commission needs some autonomy, but in my judgment this could further politicize the commission, which would make it less effective. But I am pleased that Senator Nickles added my requirement that commission members must have some direct experience abroad in order to be appointed to the commission. We must have a commission with members who have direct knowledge of religious freedom issues in targeted countries, those who have been there, those who know the problems that these people could face in the form of any kind of retribution toward any US government action taken. I was also pleased that language was added to track some of Senator Lugar's Sanctions Reform Act in several sections of the bill. Those were the provisions that would require consultation with interested parties in order to achieve a multilateral solution as well as an analysis of whether an action would achieve the purpose of promoting religious freedom, whether it would be counterproductive, and what the cost would be of that action to the rest of the economy. Because so many changes were made to improve this legislation and because so many wanted to support some kind of bill, I worked very hard with Senator Nickles and others to improve the bill. I now believe that we must also exercise our oversight function over the commission as well as the overall approach of this legislation in the years ahead. We must continue to ask ourselves whether this kind of public approach really works. We must consider whether we want a commission or our Government deciding what religious persecution is, which religions are we going to help, and which ones will we ignore, and which countries we will label a ``country of particular concern,'' and which will escape that designation for some foreign policy reason. Where will we draw the line? Will we factor in every kind of discrimination against religion, including many we may have questions about? Will we be drawn into disputes with other countries that question why they were named and not other equally violative countries? Mr. President, we will need to monitor its results, and we need to do that in order to make sure that it accomplishes its purpose. There may be some fine tuning that we need to do to the bill to improve it to make it work better. This is a dangerous area in which we are treading. It is full of pitfalls, I believe, but I think we can overcome them if we are ready and willing to have oversight authority. My support of the revised Nickles bill is based on that willingness to see how this approach works, but we must pay attention to how it is working and to have the good sense to end it if it is not. As we exercise our oversight over this legislation, I ask my colleagues also to listen to the advice of The Reverend John N. Akers, of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Chairman of the East Gates Ministry International. He has been very helpful in forwarding concerns of missionaries serving abroad. Dr. Akers, who also testified before the Foreign Relations Committee, requested in a September 28 letter to my office, ``Do all you can to ensure that the final version will help religious believers in other countries and not actually, if unintentionally, make their situation worse.'' Mr. President, this is good advice, and it shall dictate how I personally analyze the success or failure of this legislation. But tonight I want to urge all my colleagues to strongly support this as a beginning. Again, I thank Senator Nickles for all the hard work to get us to this point on this legislation. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise tonight to express my grave disappointment of President Clinton's decision to veto the 1998 Agriculture Appropriations conference report, which includes emergency relief for farmers around the country, like those farmers in the Red River Valley area of my home state of Minnesota, who are struggling against a combination of devastating factors. Inclement weather, low prices, high market yields generally, and multiple years of wheat scab disease have converged to produce an atmosphere where even the best, most competitive farmers in Northwestern Minnesota are suffering. This, despite the fact that the Market Transition Payments in the FAIR Act have provided our nation's producers with a much greater safety net than the deficiency payments they would have received under the old program--about $7.5 billion more under the new farm bill than the old. Yet the President's actions will delay this important relief. This bill provides twice as much assistance as he originally requested, yet he has now joined the bidding war, changed his mind and now jeopardizes this needed assistance to our farmers. It is crucial for farmers in Minnesota, as well as other states, that the Agriculture Appropriations bill be signed by the President and not used as a pawn in a political debate. The bill funds all of our agriculture programs including $675 million to Plains farmers to help offset crop failures, like those caused by the wheat scab epidemic. It also includes $1.65 billion which is to be added to the annual market transition payments--this money will help to address depressed commodity prices. The conference report funds $56 billion to fund needed agriculture programs. This includes funds for many crucial tools to help our farmers promote their commodities at home and throughout the world. The bill funds the Farm Service Offices in our states to aid farmers in making the adjustment to Freedom to Farm. It also funds the Foreign Agricultural Service, which promotes U.S. agriculture products abroad. The Service coordinates CCC Export Credit Guarantee Programs; PL-480; Export Enhancement; and the Market Access Program. The bill will continue and expand needed assistance to farmers in the long term, as well as the short term. It is a good compromise. I voted for the conference report although there are sections that I, like many, oppose, such as language from an earlier House version which would create a backdoor extension of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. I raised some strong objections to this political maneuvering on the Senate floor last week. It will allow an unjustifiable, reprehensible program to continue for another six months. While I have deep reservations, this compromise is one we should continue to support and one the President should sign. Some say this compromise does not include enough to address the farm crisis. Yet, this conference report provides over $4.2 billion in farm relief money. This is money that will be available immediately to farmers. This is in addition to the regular AMTA payments-- that is the marketing transition support payments which have provided roughly $17.5 billion to farmers over the last two years. This is also in addition to approximately $4 billion that producers will receive in loan deficiency payments this year. Both Democrat and Republican plans were debated thoroughly in Committee, and the plan before the President is the one that the Members decided to support. The concept behind this agreement is that it continues to support farmers through the transition from the old failed system of our farm program to the new Freedom to Farm legislation, as well as to address needs created by weather and disease disasters. It does not attempt to throw another net of Washington programs over our farmers. Despite the partisan grandstanding you have heard, the plan before us will provide the transition assistance that our farmers need. And it will not undo the Freedom to Farm policy that we worked so hard to achieve. Farmers in Minnesota have made it clear to me that they do not want welfare. The relief plan currently in the Agriculture Appropriations report avoids going in that direction. It is a one-time support package, as opposed to returning to our failed agriculture policies of the past. It also avoids the flaw of lifting the loan caps, a move that would both exacerbate the current grain glut and also distort market signals, encouraging excess production, which would continue low prices. It is painfully clear by this point that the only purpose served by promoting ``lifting the loan caps'' is one of grandstanding, and we all know that a higher loan rate leads both to increased production, larger surpluses along with lower prices. This option again was rejected by the Senate, Senate twice, yet it keeps coming back, rearing its ugly head. There is simply no justifiable basis for a Presidential veto of the Agriculture Appropriations bill. As we have heard Chairman Cochran explain here on the floor, it contains a lot of money for production agriculture. So a threatened veto is certainly not about money--it is about politics. I remind my colleagues the President's original request for farmer relief--the original request--was $2.3 billion. The current package contains more than $4 billion. Now, however, he wants to veto legislation providing more money than his request. He has changed his mind and now wants $3 billion more. This is simply a half-hearted attempt by the President to back a Democrat effort to revisit the Freedom to Farm bill. This is legislation that only 2 years ago, the Congress and President Clinton himself agreed it was needed to move the business of agriculture out of the grip of Government control. It is disturbing to me that when the White House does not get its way, it vetoes legislation or takes it to the courts, and if rejected there, appeals to the higher courts. The bottom line is that it continues to try and go around Congress, rejecting decisions made by a majority of Congress. Minnesota farmers should not be used as pawns in an election-year drama. The President should help farmers by signing this significant, emergency legislation, rather than joining those here who seek to undo the progress that has been made on agriculture policy. The solution is here before us, and delays will be laid right at the President's feet. For the sake of our nation's farmers, let's end the bidding war. Let's end it now. I strongly urge the President to reconsider his decision as he reviews this crucial legislation again in the Omnibus Appropriations bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr President, I rise today to pay tribute to the courageous men and women who serve in the United States Navy. The origins of the Navy can be traced back to October 13, 1775, when the Continental Congress ordered the construction of ships for use in the War of Independence. It was at this time that the Continental Navy was formed, nine months before America declared itself independent. However, it wasn't until later, on April 30, 1798, that the Department of the Navy was established and Benjamin Stoddert was appointed its first Secretary. This past spring we celebrated the 200th anniversary of the Department of the Navy. Today, the United States Navy has grown to a force of nearly 400,000 active duty and 96,000 Reserves. During times of war, these brave individuals join with the other Armed Forces and valiantly risk their lives to defend America's freedom and national interests. During times of peace, the Navy is engaged in promoting regional economic and political stability by maintaining a global presence both above and beneath the surface of the seas. The Navy is organized into three main components. The first component, the Navy Department, consists of the Washington, D.C. executive offices and the Secretary of Defense. The second component, the operating forces, includes the Marine Corps, the reserve components and during times of war, the U.S. Coast Guard. The operating component trains and equips naval forces. The third component, the shore establishment, provides intelligence support, medical and dental facilities, training areas, communications centers, and facilities for the repair of machinery and electronics. Together these components form a strong force ready to defend the seas whenever freedom is threatened. An important division of the Navy is the Naval Reserve. Today, the Naval Reserve comprises 20 percent of the Navy's total assets. These dedicated men and women have provided assistance as medical personnel and offered fleet intelligence support in operations such as Desert Shield and Desert Storm. At other times, the Naval Reserve has helped provide humanitarian assistance and has engaged in maritime patrol. Over the years, the Naval Reserve has evolved from a reactive to a proactive force ready to meet the challenges of the next century. Minnesota is home to 282 active duty Navy servicepeople, of which 35 are officers and 247 are enlisted. In addition, Minnesota has 1,540 Navy reservists, of which 340 are officers and 1,200 are enlisted. Mr. President, since its founding over 200 years ago, the Navy has shown the utmost dedication and service while protecting our national interests. I truly appreciate its commitment to defending this nation and am honored today to pay tribute to the men and women of the United States Navy.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 664, H.R. 8.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, Senator Chafee has a manager's amendment at the desk and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.