Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the City of Anoka Police Department on its selection as a semifinalist in the 1998 Innovations in American Government Awards competition. As my colleagues may know, Innovations in American Government is considered one of the most prestigious public-service awards granted each year in the United States. This awards program is sponsored by the Ford Foundation, and administered by Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government in partnership with the Council for Excellence in Government. Since 1986, Innovation awards have been given to those programs and policies that represent effective and innovative government initiatives. This year, the City of Anoka Police Department Juvenile Justice Alternative Police Accountability Conferencing Program has been selected as a semifinalist from among 1,400 applications submitted by federal, state, county, and city and town organizations. Later this year, the number of semifinalists will be narrowed to 25 finalists, ten of which will receive awards for $100,000 from the Ford Foundation. The remaining 15 finalists will each receive $20,000. At a time when juvenile crime is on the rise in my home state of Minnesota and across the country, I am pleased that the Anoka Police Department has been recognized for its unique and effective efforts to address this important public safety issue in our communities. Initiatives such as those implemented by the Anoka Police Department will help to ensure that the young first-time offenders of today do not become the career criminals of tomorrow. Through the leadership of Police Chief Andrew Revering, the Anoka Police Department developed a program in 1994 to address the challenge of rising juvenile crime and the increasing rate of repeat juvenile offenders. The Juvenile Justice Alternative Police Accountability Conferencing Program allows for specially trained police officers to facilitate and supervise meetings between first time offenders, so the offender can be held accountable for his or her actions such as minor theft, vandalism, assault or disorderly conduct. Under this program, the offender is required to admit guilt to the police, and with parental consent, he or she takes part in a police accountability conference. The Police Accountability Conferencing Program ensures victims of crime, offenders, and communities a right to participate in the process of determining how to address the consequences which result from criminal behavior. Through interaction with police and victims, offenders develop a greater understanding of the effect their actions have on a victim and his or her family. More importantly, this program has demonstrated a proven record of success since only a small number of those who have entered the Anoka Police Accountability Conferencing Program have become repeat offenders. The Anoka Police Department's success with this program has led many agencies in Minnesota and throughout the country to begin implementing similar programs. To its credit, Anoka Police have also educated and trained officers from Arizona, Colorado, California, Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota and North Carolina about the police conferencing program. Clearly, the City of Anoka and its Police Department have demonstrated exceptional leadership in fulfilling a local government's primary responsibility: to protect citizens from crime and its debilitating effect on communities. Mr. President, I am pleased to have shared the success of this innovative program with my colleagues in the Senate. I look forward to visiting this program in the future, and learning more about similar initiatives in Minnesota that will help to prevent crime and keep our citizens safe.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for up to half an hour in morning business.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on July 1st, concerned Americans will gather in Cranston, Rhode Island, for the second in what will be a series of public meetings called the ``Great Social Security Debate.'' I want to thank the Concord Coalition, the American Association of Retired Persons, and Americans Discuss Social Security for sponsoring this event. The first forum, which took place last April 7th in Kansas City, Missouri, was a great success. The discussions in Rhode Island will no doubt be equally compelling, especially given the focus of the debate: ``Retirement in the 21st Century.'' It is with one eye to the 21st Century that I rise today to speak about Social Security's past--to offer some perspective on its history and what we can learn from our attempts at social policy making. In recent years, as more and more Americans become aware of its looming financial and demographic crisis, Social Security is no longer the ``third rail'' of American politics. Both Democrats and Republicans have offered reform plans, including ones that would set up individual retirement accounts--a suddenly mainstream idea that would have been considered heresy just a couple of years ago. Long before President Clinton's ``Save Social Security'' State of the Union address, a national dialogue was already underway. Summits, conferences, forums, and town hall meetings were organized to allow all Americans, old and young, to discuss Social Security and how to reform it to benefit our nation and make retirement more secure for current and future generations. This democratic process will help us build a national consensus and eventually find workable solutions to preserve and strengthen Social Security while providing freedom of choice for all Americans. As we move forward, it is important to remember that history is a mirror--by looking through it we gain perspective and the wisdom it provides, giving us the opportunity to avoid repeating mistakes. Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek says: Political opinion and views about historical events ever have been and always must be closely connected. Past experience is the foundation on which our beliefs about the desirability of different policies and institutions are mainly based. . . Yet we can hardly profit from past experience unless the facts from which we draw our conclusions are correct. A review of its history will provide a better understanding of the origin and evolution of our Social Security system. It will facilitate the national debate on its reform and point us in the right direction. For a time I would like to travel back in time. For hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, human society relied on families, relatives, or friends to care for their elders. For the unfortunate individuals who could not support themselves, or did not have families to support them, the community provided assistance, in many cases through what were called the ``poor laws.'' The first compulsory social insurance programs on a national scale, including the programs that we call ``Social Security" today, were established in Germany under Bismarck during the 1880s. Soon after, Austria and Hungary followed Germany by passing similar legislation. England adopted national compulsory social insurance in 1911 and greatly expanded it in 1948. After 1920, social insurance on a compulsory basis was rapidly adopted throughout Europe and into the American hemisphere. The United States did not have a national social insurance program until 1935. Today, more than 140 countries in the world have one form or another of a social security program. Unfortunately, a recent World Bank study shows that most of these programs are not sustainable in their present form. I will discuss this issue on another occasion. It has been said that the industrial and agricultural revolution that began in the late 18th Century triggered social reform that shifted elderly-care from individuals and families to the state. But empirical evidence is insufficient to support this statement, particularly in the case of the United States. Prior to 1929, the economic condition of the elderly in America was fairly secure: most owned their own homes and lived off labor income, which was supplemented by emerging private pension plans as well as life insurance, savings, and family support. The intellectual origin of social insurance, or as we call it, Social Security, comes in effect from an obscure group of scholars known as the German historical school of economics. Driven by their dislike of laissez-faire capitalism and fear for a Marxist-led revolution, a group of German-government employed professors desperately sought a middle ground to make peace with Marxists. They pushed for large-scale welfare legislation that could, in their view, ease the social tension, keep social order and justice, and avoid proletariat revolutions. One of the leading figures was Gustav Schmoller. Schmoller was sympathetic to the industrial proletariat, and hated what he called the ``unethical'' striving for wealth by the property-owning classes. He believed that the lower classes had a right to derive benefits from increased production through welfare legislation. He argued that unequal distribution of income was evil, and that government, not the individual or the community, had the moral duty to help the proletariat maintain equity and social harmony. In the early 1870s, Schmoller set up the Congress for Social Reform. The purpose was to draft, propose, and promote social legislation. Later, he and others created the Association of Socialpolitics as a forum to advocate social reform. As a result of his effort, the Bismarck government passed the first welfare laws in 1883 and old age insurance laws in 1889 in Germany. Very few in this country have ever heard about the German Historical School of Economics, but it was this small group of intellectual elite had a tremendous impact on American economic thought as well as public policy making. As thousands of young Americans went to Germany to study in the late 19th century and early this century, many became disciples of the German Historical School of Economics and were indoctrinated by German welfare capitalism. The American students were urged by their German teachers to influence the course of politics in the U.S. and change American attitudes towards social legislation. Now, these German-trained and educated economists--Adams, Clark, Patten, Seligman, and Ely--founded the American Economic Association in 1885. That is the American counterpart of the German Association of Socialpolitics. Edwin Gay, one of Schmoller's students, was a founder of the National Bureau of Economic Research and created the journal, Foreign Affairs. Recford Tugwell, a well-known American disciple of the German Historical School of Economics, favored social legislation along the lines of the German welfare economists. Tugwell become influential under President Roosevelt in the 1930s and exerted considerable legislative influence under the New Deal. Richard Ely, another important disciple of the German Historical School, established the American Association for Labor Legislation, later named the American Association for Old-age Security. That launched the first American social insurance movement. He was even put on trial by Wisconsin's superintendent of public instruction for propagating socialism in Wisconsin schools in 1894. Ely and John Commons succeeded in passing the old-age insurance legislation in Wisconsin in 1925. That was among the first in this country. Later, the Wisconsin model was used in drafting the federal Social Security legislation. Now, despite their enthusiasm for social legislation, these German- trained intellectuals were initially not successful in achieving their goals in America. Before 1929, there were no significant, broad-based demands for compulsory, federal old-age insurance. In most states, elderly assistance was locally provided and administered through poor laws. Private charity and town/county-controlled almshouses were the primary sources for elderly assistance. In 1929, the New York Commission on Old-Age Security found that 90 percent of the elderly population were either self-supporting or were being supported by their families and relatives. Less than four percent depended on private charity or public assistance. Private pensions existed although they were not widespread in America before the era of the Great Depression. During the Great Depression, when the stock market plunged 80 percent, 15 percent of the population began receiving some form of public relief. This event gave tremendous momentum to social legislation. On June 8, 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt announced his intention to provide a program for Social Security. Subsequently, FDR created the Committee on Economic Security, which was chaired by Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor, with four other members of the cabinet. The committee was instructed to study the entire problem of economic insecurity and to make recommendations that would serve as the basis for legislation consideration by the Congress. A number of university professors were called to staff the CES. According to the recollections of Professor Douglas Brown, a staff member in the small, old-age security section of the CES, the major attention of the CES and its staff was focused on unemployment insurance, not old age insurance. FDR, Perkins, and the CES director clearly had doubts about a national old-age system. On a number of occasions it appeared unlikely that the Committee would approve the old-age insurance system. Because it was on the back burner, the old-age security section had a very small staff and was left alone to work out a plan at its will. Basically, two individuals, Barbara Armstrong of the University of California and Douglas Brown of Princeton, who pushed old-age insurance in the CES. The two actually drafted the U.S. Social Security plan in only a month. Their compulsory old-age insurance plan raised serious concerns about its constitutionality within the CES. Even President Roosevelt, Labor Secretary Perkins, who was also the chairman of the CES, and Edwin Witte, the Executive Director of the CES, did not think this was the right time for a Social Security system. But the intellectual elite within the CES pushed on. In November, 1934, Armstrong asked her friend, Max Stern, who was in the Scripps- Howard newspaper chain to launch a sharply written editorial criticizing Roosevelt's failure to give his wholehearted support to old-age insurance. Roosevelt finally caved. From then on, old-age insurance moved to the front burner at the CES. The original proposals for the old-age insurance program drafted by the CES staff allowed the states or private insurance companies to administer the program. But this was removed in later drafts. Douglas Brown later admitted that the CES staff deliberately exaggerated the difficulties of establishing separate state old-age insurance systems as an alternative to a federal system. It is generally believed that the Great Depression made Social Security necessary for the American people. The CES argued that the Great Depression had greatly exacerbated the plight of the elderly, that the elderly were among the first to lose their jobs, and that the effects of the Depression would be felt for a long time to come since many families had seen their lifetime savings wiped out. However, the Social Security proposal submitted to Congress fell far short of dealing with this. The Social Security system started to collect payroll taxes in 1937 but no benefits were distributed until 1942. It took more than seven years for this elderly relief measure to be effective--long after the Great Depression ended. More recent studies have suggested the Depressions may not have dictated the establishment of a Social Security system. For example, economists now believe that by examining the welfare of the elderly outside the family context, reformers such as those staffing the CES drew an exaggerated picture of the elderly's plight. The 1935-36 data shows that per-capita household income peaked at $627 for persons aged 60 to 64, while for people aged 65 and over, average per-capita income was only slightly lower, at $601. In any event, the CES made its report to the President in early January 1935, and on January 17, the President introduced the report in both Houses of Congress for simultaneous consideration. In less than seven months following its introduction, Congress passed and the President signed the Social Security Act into law. The history of Congress' debates and consideration of this legislation is of particular interest. When drafting the compulsory old-age legislation, the CES felt that the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, which had jurisdiction over the issue, might not be sympathetic toward FDR's plan, so they created a special committee that would be headed by the labor committees' chairmen. Without showing much interest in the substance of social security, the tax committees were concerned nonetheless with who should have jurisdiction over it. When it appeared he might be bypassed, Ways and Means Chairman Robert Doughton of North Carolina went to see FDR, whereupon the President told Frances Perkins that bypassing the Ways and Means Committee would never do. He did not want to alienate Doughton and his Senate counterpart, Pat Harrison. Without especially liking the old-age insurance program, both committee chairmen stood loyally by it, perhaps in return for having been left in charge. Instead of being put into a new committee, the chairmen of these committees, the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means, did not want to feel that they were being bypassed, so they pledged their loyalty in order to keep jurisdiction in their committees over these plans. Once the Economic Security bill was introduced, both chambers began hearings immediately, and it took less than a month for the committees to complete its work on the bill. Nearly 100 people testified--but most of them were either government officials or friends of the CES. The general public and opponents of the bill, particularly employer groups, were not well represented. Again, according to CES Director Edwin Witte, the employer groups ``simply knew too little to take any active role.'' So did the public. In other words, the employers and the public knew too little, so they only invited certain people to testify before their committees in support of the new Social Security program. The Economic Security Legislation contained many titles. In an ``all- or-none'' strategy, FDR smartly tied old-age insurance with the old-age assistance program. If not for the needed program to aid the elderly poor, the old-age insurance would have never gone through the Congress, according Edwin Witte. Nevertheless, there was no shortage of opposition to the bill in the House. In fact, the old-age insurance title was nearly stricken from the bill in the House Ways and Means Committee and again on the House floor, where an amendment to strike the program mustered a third of the votes cast. Congressman Allen Treadway, the ranking Republican member of the House Ways and Means Committee, called old-age insurance the ``worst title in the bill. . . a burdensome tax on industry.'' Congressman Daniel Reed pointed out that neither old-age insurance nor unemployment compensation were ``relief provisions and they are not going to bring any relief to the destitute or needy now nor for many years to come.'' When the Senate began debate on the legislation, the old-age insurance program became even more controversial. Many senators from both sides of the aisle seriously questioned how un-Americaness this compulsory old-age insurance plan was. So there were a lot of questions and concerns at that time in Congress over these proposals. Some worried about the extremely high cost of the program and the heavy tax burden it would impose on the American people. Some doubted the finance mechanism, and predicted the funding could not be sustained. Some pointed out how unwise it was to have the federal government, instead of states and private companies, run the plan. Some were concerned that, as an emergency measure to respond to the difficult days of the Great Depression, the plan would turn into a permanent program over which the Congress had no control. Some criticized the discriminative nature of the legislation against the young and higher-wage earners. Some questioned the morality of the current generation passing the burden to future generations. Unfortunately, many of their prophecies have become reality today. The major battle on the Economic Security Legislation was fought over the Clark amendment. Senator Bennett Clark, a Democrat from Missouri, recognized the income-redistribution and non-competitive nature of the old-age insurance program and decided to amend it by allowing companies with private pensions to opt out of the public program. Any employer could stay out of the Social Security program if they had a pension plan that offered benefits comparable to the federal program. Workers would be given the freedom to choose either the federal Social Security program or a private pension plan offered by their companies. Clark argued that if the purpose of the old-age insurance program was to provide pensions based on earnings and contributions, not to redistribute income, the private sector was perfectly capable of performing this function. Unearned benefits, not competition, were the source of the problem. The proponents of the Economic Security Bill feared that if the Clark amendment passed, it would encourage private competition and put the federal-run program at a disadvantage. That is the market at work. Again, those who were proponents of the Social Security plan did not like the Clark amendment because they thought it would encourage private competition and it would put the Federal run program at a disadvantage. Competition would eventually undermine and destroy the Social Security program, they argued. The Clark amendment was narrowly defeated in the Senate Finance Committee by a tied vote, but was adopted on the Senate floor by a wide margin of 51 to 35. Considering FDR's veto threat and the two-to-one ratio of Democrats/Republicans in the Senate, this was indeed a very significant vote. Subsequently, the Senate passed the Economic Security bill, including the Clark amendment, by a vote of 77-6. However, the amendment became a sticking point once the bill reached conference. House conferees strongly opposed the amendment on the grounds that it would ruin the federal program, but Senate conferees refused to concede on this matter. The conference dragged on for weeks. At the end, FDR ordered the Senate Democrat conferees to agree to the House position, and because many conferees feared that the much-needed old-age assistance might be delayed by the Clark amendment, they agreed to drop the amendment. The concession was that the Administration promised to further study the idea of contracting out of Social Security. There would be a special joint legislative committee to work on legislation based on the Clark amendment and submit it to Congress for consideration during the next session. With that understanding, the Congress approved the conference report. FDR signed it into law on August 14, 1935. The promised special committee and the Clark legislation, of course, never happened. In her book, ``The Roosevelt I Knew'', Frances Perkins recorded an interesting conversation she had with Senator Al Gore, Sr., of Tennessee: ``I remember that when I appeared before the Senate Committee old Senator Gore raised a sarcastic objection. `Isn't this Socialism?' ``My reply was, `Oh, no.' Then, smiling, leaning forward and talking to me as though I were a child, he said, `Isn't this a teeny-weeny bit of Socialism?' '' Despite her denial, Senator Gore may have made a point. Professor Theresa McMahon, a member of the Social Security Council, put it more bluntly by saying at that time: `` I don't mind taxing the bachelors. . .I think they ought to take on the responsibility of sharing their income with somebody else.'' On January 31, 1940, the Social Security system started to distribute the payroll taxes the government had collected in the past three years to those who never paid any tax into the system. The first monthly retirement check was issued to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, in the amount of $22.54. Miss Fuller died in January of 1975 at the age of 100. During her 35 years as a beneficiary, she received over $20,000 in benefits and paid in nothing. In the 60 years following its creation, and despite continued criticism, the Social Security program has grown dramatically in size and scope. As more beneficiaries and programs are added, the payroll tax has been raised 51 times. Congress 51 different times has gone back either to raise the tax on Social Security, or to expand the income on which that was to be taxed. As an example, in 1940, an American worker earning the maximum taxable wage paid $70 in payroll tax. That is $675 in inflation- adjusted dollars. Today, that same worker would pay a Social Security payroll tax of $8,481. So the maximum in 1940 in today's dollars would have been $675. The maximum today is nearly $8,500. Meanwhile, the number of workers per retiree has dropped from 100 in 1942 to two today, and the unfunded liabilities of the program have become unbearable for future generations. Since the enactment of the 1935 Social Security Act, many changes have taken place to expand the program. Major changes include the 1939 amendment, which was initiated by Social Security officials and greatly expanded the program. It required the payment of benefits to the spouse and minor children of a retired worker, and survivor benefits to the family in the event of the premature death of a covered worker. It also increased benefit amounts and accelerated the start of monthly benefit payments from 1942 to 1940. The 1939 amendment officially set up the pay-as-you-go scheme which uses today's tax to pay today's benefits, leaving unfunded liabilities to future generations. A 1950 amendment accelerated the benefits schedules and extended Social Security coverage to the self-employed. In 1952, all Social Security beneficiaries received a general ``cost-of-living'' increase. The Social Security Amendments of 1954 expanded the old-age insurance to a disability insurance program. Another major change was made in 1956. The 1956 amendment expanded Social Security coverage to more classes of workers, increased the wage base substantially, and increased benefits by 77 percent. In 1965, Medicare, a new social insurance program that extended health coverage to retirees, was added to the Social Security system. In the 1970s, another new program, Supplemental Security Income, was added. The 1950s and 1960s were the golden age for Social Security because the fund revenue was greatly increased by growing employment and rising wage rates. Social Security officials repeatedly assured the Congress that Social Security would maintain long-term actuarial balances. Ronald Reagan saw the defects of the system and was the first to suggest investing Social Security funds in the market. As early as 1964, Reagan asked: ``Can we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen to do better on his own, to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provisions for the non- earning years?'' Reagan's advice was cast aside. But in 1975, Social Security first began running larger long-term deficits. Its expenditures exceeded income by $1.5 billion. The pay-as-you-go finance mechanism started cracking and was unable to produce large windfall gains to retirees. In 1977 and 1983, Congress had no choice but to pass Social Security rescue packages by significantly increasing taxes. Again Washington claimed the fix would make Social Security solvent for at least 75 years. Again, that was a lie. Today, Social Security faces the severest crisis yet. When 74 million baby boomers begin retiring in 2008, Social Security will run a cash shortage in 2013 and go broke in 2031, according to official projections. Knowing the ``reliability'' of these official forecasts, the shortage could arrive much earlier. Without a policy change, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the debt held by the public will balloon to nearly $80 trillion, from today about $5.6 trillion in debt. But without a policy change, beginning with Social Security, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the debt held by the public could balloon to as much as $80 trillion. And General Accounting Office estimates that it could be even worse. The General Accounting Office says it could be a $158 trillion debt. This is very, very serious. Mr. President, that covers the history of Social Security. Now, what can we learn from our past policy making experiences? First, the Social Security system was put together in just a few weeks without thorough debate and time to consider such a major policy change. It was imposed on the American people following a time of economic crisis and despair by a few individuals who had a personal agenda of redistributing private income. At the time it passed, few people understood the long-term impact of the program on the citizens. It was hardly a democratic process. Second, a retirement program that mixes insurance with welfare does not work, because these two functions are fundamentally incompatible. As a result, we have a bad welfare plan and a bad old-age insurance plan which make the system much more inefficient for those who need welfare assistance as well as those who need retirement security. It does not work because it is based on the false assumption that people no longer have to work to achieve the American dream--the government will take care of them. Third, when we consider Social Security, policy--not politics--should be our guide. Changes made for short term gain will come back to haunt us. Fourth, the federal government does not have a good record of running social insurance programs. We should look for ways to improve and streamline the program. Fifth, we should begin to look to the ingenuity and competitive spirit of the private sector to improve and rejuvenate the program. The American people should have some freedom of choice. Each individual has different abilities and different needs at different times; they should be free to choose either the current compulsory insurance plan or their own individual retirement accounts. The individual retirement account is not a new idea. A majority in Congress supported this idea 60 years ago. Sixty years ago the Clark amendment, the individual retirement account, was supported by the vast majority in Congress--60 years ago. Had we adopted the Clark amendment then, our Social Security system would be in much better shape today. And it is not too late, because Congress should take Senator Clark's advice by allowing people to opt out of the Social Security system and giving individual workers the right to fund and control the investment of their own retirement accounts. With today's mature and well-regulated financial markets, every American, rich or poor, can greatly improve their retirement security. We must provide the options to ensure that Americans can provide for their retirement, not just pass an increasing liability on to their children and grandchildren. If we don't make this change, we are going to pass to our children a national debt somewhere between $80- and $160 trillion. We need to pass on the ability for our children and grandchildren to make those decisions for themselves. Finally, we need to educate and inform the public about Social Security. We should encourage more people to participate in the policymaking process. We need to encourage them to understand how options can actually help them enjoy their retirement. A well-informed general public will not be deceived by political rhetoric and will be able to decide what is the best option for them. They can make that decision best for themselves. So, Mr. President, with the perspective offered by the past, I urge my colleagues to join me in the months to come in my efforts to improve retirement security for all Americans. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Mortgage Litigation Reform Act of 1998. This legislation is a narrowly crafted, bipartisan bill. Its goal is to provide relief from frivolous class action lawsuits resulting from the regulatory ambiguity over the payment of certain fees by mortgage bankers to mortgage brokers. A spate of recent class action lawsuits have called into question the legality of yield spread premiums, although there is no statute or regulation ruling that such fees are per se illegal. This legislation simply places a moratorium, from the date of enactment through July 1, 1999, on class action lawsuits regarding these fees. It is important to note that the bill is narrowly crafted and does not prohibit personal rights of action or criminal prosecution related to these payments. During the moratorium period, I am hopeful that either the Department of Housing and Urban Development will publish a clear ruling governing the payment of yield spread premiums or, better yet, Congress will achieve the long sought after overhaul of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Truth In Lending Act (TILA).

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, my amendment will accomplish two important goals. It will provide the Naval Air Reserve with new facilities to better meet its training needs and will facilitate the development of the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport to serve all Minnesotans. This amendment authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to convey or lease a parcel of property which includes the current Naval Air Reserve Center to the Minnesota Airports Commission. In return, the Minnesota Airports Commission will assume the costs of designing and constructing facilities that the Secretary of the Navy considers appropriate for the Naval Air Reserve as well as any reasonable relocation expenses. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Navy, the Minnesota Airports Commission, and the Federal Aviation Administration support this amendment. This is a win-win proposition for the Navy and the traveling public.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. Having just celebrated Flag Day, June 14, the symbol of our great country is vividly in mind. In close conjunction with that symbol of freedom, is our freedom guarded by those who serve in our Military Services who have been willing to give their lives for our country. It seems fitting to show our honor and respect to those who have valiantly and fearlessly carried the banner of our flag into battle. Each one of these battle-ready patriots should carry a memento of their military service home with them--to remind them of our gratitude and their great achievement in keeping the country free. My amendment would present a U.S. flag to each active duty person who has served our country. I know that former Senator Robert Dole has supported this effort as well. All components of the Military Services, the active duty, the National Guard and the Reserves of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines, who have completed honorable tours of duty will be eligible for this gift from a grateful nation. It seems appropriate that an American flag be presented to those honorably discharged while they are still with us, not just to spread over their caskets as they depart this world. This living symbol will do much to re-invigorate and re-dedicated the whole nation to our reason for being--freedom and liberty for all.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this amendment will extend the authorization of the authorities under the Defense Production Act for one year through September 30, 1999. This matter is under the jurisdiction of the Senate Banking Committee, on which I serve as the Subcommittee on International Finance Chairman which handles this issue. Chairman D'Amato and Ranking Member Sarbanes of the Banking Committee, as well as Ranking Member of the International Finance Subcommittee, Senator Moseley-Braun, all have agreed to support this one-year extension as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill to facilitate this matter in a year when floor time is becoming scarce. The Defense Production Act (DPA) is the primary authority for executive branch activities to ensure the timely availability of resources for national defense and civil emergency preparedness and response. It was first enacted in 1950 to mobilize the nation's productive capacity during the Korean War and ensures the availability of critical materials needed both for national defense and for catastrophic civil disasters. It allows criminal sanctions to prevent hoarding of critical materials. The DPA also authorizes the President to use financial incentives to encourage contractors to establish or expand industrial capacity for defense needs. The ``Exon-Florio'' language which authorizes the President to prohibit foreign investment if such investment threatens national security is also included in this Act. While DPA's primary function is to ensure resources are available in times of war, the DPA, as administered through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also provides assistance during natural disasters. For instance, FEMA used the DPA to procure resources needed during the 1997 flood disaster in my own State of Minnesota. The Administration had requested some minor changes in the DPA. However, because committee and floor time is scarce this year, they agreed to a one-year extension. It is the goal of the Banking Committee to consider these changes, and a longer term reauthorization, next year. Mr. President, I thank the floor leaders for agreeing to facilitate this amendment as part of the DOD bill.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on behalf of all Minnesotans, I would like to congratulate Cheryl Poepping from Cold Spring, Minnesota. Cheryl was recently named the Minnesota state winner in the Citizens Flag Alliance Essay Contest. The topic of her award winning essay is ``The American Flag Protection Amendment: A Right of the People . . . the Right Thing to Do.'' I am submitting Cheryl's winning essay and ask that it be printed in the Record. I agree whole-heartedly with her endorsement of the flag protecting amendment and appreciate the words she chose to convey her message. Cheryl is an outstanding young American, and I am proud to count her among my constituents. Again, I offer my sincere congratulations. The essay follows: The American Flag Protection Amendment: A Right of the People . . . the Right Thing to Do (By Cheryl Poepping) Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady was quoted as saying, ``Neither the ACLU nor the media gave us free speech--our veterans did.'' For over 200 hundred years Americans had the right to protect the flag but in the cases of Texas v. Johnson in 1989 and U.S. v. Eichman in 1990 the court ended this power and stated that it was a ``First Amendment right of citizens to burn flags in protest.'' (Goldstein 85). This allowance undermines the very thing that veterans strove for, freedom. Which is why H.J. Res. 54 was introduced by Gerald Solomona. This resolution is a constitutional amendment proposed to prohibit the desecration of the flag (Packard http.). To many the flag is not just a symbol but rather representation for all the men who died defending and supporting this country. By allowing this to continue we not only undermine 200 years of history but we also destroy patriotism and respect for the country and our veterans. The flag is a symbol of patriotism. Sown not only for those living but those who have sacrificed to make this country what it is. The flag is ``a beacon of democracy and hope in a world plagued by turmoil and depression (Packard http).'' The flag allows people to believe in the country and promotes a level of respect for everything the country stands for. Without patriotism the values of the country will decline. Many feel the greatest tragedy in flag burning is the mutilation of the values it embodies and the disrespect to those who have sacrificed for those values (Brady http). This amendment understands that when someone desecrates the flag, such acts are perceived as attacks on patriotic self sacrifice (Presser http). If you went to Arlington Cemetery how many men do you think died defending a cause as noble as democracy? The answer is obvious, all of them. They did not die to protect themselves or even the ones they loved, but to protect all future generations and to ensure what this country is based on freedom. These veterans deserve the honor that defending the flag has given them. To these veterans we will be saying with the passage of the flag protection amendment that we will honor them through not allowing the desecration of the symbol they united in defense to protect. Protection of the flag comes directly from the citizens where 80% support the amendment (Presser http) stating that we as citizens feel that ``You--the United States--have done a whole lot for us, and therefore we are going to do this for you, we are going to protect you against public indignity. (National Review 75).'' Maj. General Patrick Brady stated that, ``I hope they (the voters) will have the compassion to defer to those great blood donors to our freedom, those men and women we honor on Veterans Day, many whose final earthy embrace was in the folds of Old Glory.'' This quote emphasizes the importance of this symbol to our veterans and our country, displaying the need for its protection. Many oppose the constitutional amendment saying for the first time in history they are limiting the freedoms of Americans. This is not true. It is not a dagger struck out at the first amendment, but rather a indication that popular sovereignty is vital and active in this country. This question demonstrates the struggle over what kind of country we want to be (Presser http). The First Amendment has come to protect many ideals that when it was written it has no intention of protecting. The proposed amendment would merely clarify that the First Amendment never presupposed citizens the right to desecrate the flag (National Review 76). Flag burning is not speech. It is an act that has no association with the first amendment or what it preserves (Brady http). In fact in the 1880's the initial flag protection acts were institutionalized and later in 1984 extended laws were enacted to safeguard our flag from intentional public desecration (Packard http). Let it be understood that such champions of liberty such as Earl Warren and Hugo Black expressed their opinions that flag desecration was not protected under the First Amendment (Presser http). Flag desecration is an act that does not represent anything wholesome or respectable about our country. We as citizens of this country now have the opportunity to amend this injustice done to us by the passage of The American Flag Protection Amendment. All responsible citizens should voice the opinion that flag desecration goes against the ideas the United States was conceived to uphold. The First Amendment was never designed to allow these grossly offensive acts to occur. This amendment would uphold the honor bestowed on those that fought for this country. It would allow the loved ones of those who died to know that this country is noble and worth sacrificing their life for. As Stephen B. Presser stated ``Disrespect, division, an disunity are not characteristic of a lovable people.'' With the passage of this amendment we will prove not only to ourselves but also to the world that the United States does not exemplify any of these negative characteristics. biliography ``Burn the Flag? Well, No.'' National Review. 9 June 1995: 75-76. Brady, Maj. Gen. Patrick (USArmy-Ret.) ``The Lost Legacy of our Veterans''. http://www.cfa-inc.org/edit 11.htm ``Dooley Votes For Constitutional Amendment on Flag Desecration.'' http://www.house.gov/dooley/flagamend.html (17 Dec. 1997). Goldstein, Robert Justin. ``This Flag Is Not For Burning.'' The Nation 18 July 1994: 85-86. Packard, Ron. ``Statement Hon. Ron Packard,'' http:// www.house.gov/packard/flag6-12.htm (12 Dec. 1997). Presser, Stephen. ``Why the Flag Amendment is a Really Great Idea.'' http://www.cfa-inc.org/edit10.htm.>

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I would like to request 15 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few brief remarks about tax cuts and the budget, and the promises that have so tightly entwined the two. The House passed its budget resolution last Friday by a vote of 216 to 204. The House budget plan would cut $101 billion in government spending over the next 5 years. It would also repeal the marriage penalty tax, which has unjustly punished 21 million couples just for getting married. However, the House-passed budget plan failed to provide reconciliation instructions for achieving this tax relief, and failed to provide clear guidance on how to use any budget surpluses. While the efforts by our colleagues in the House represent a move in the right direction, Congress must do better by the taxpayers. It now falls to the conference committee to ensure we keep our promise to offer meaningful tax relief to working Americans. That promise must provide the framework for the budget resolution produced by this Congress. Thanks to the exceptionally healthy economy, our short-term fiscal condition has greatly improved in the past few years, not because of what Congress did--in spite of what Congress did. But it is the economy. In fact, we will soon see a unified budget surplus for the first time since 1969. On May 26, President Clinton announced that this year's budget surplus would be $39 billion. His figure is significantly less than the $43-to-$63 billion surplus forecast by the CBO and contradicts the President's own Treasury report, which revealed that through April, revenues were surging into the Treasury even faster than CBO thought. Treasury officials forecast that the surplus could be as large as $100 billion if the revenue flow follows last year's pattern. According to some estimates, the budget surplus could reach $1.34 trillion over the next 5 years. The question is, what do we do with the surplus? Basically, what Washington has done is overcharged our American workers and industry. I would just like to show in the Washington Post, yesterday's edition, June 9, it says: Virginia Power Agrees To Rebates. Why is this similar? I would like to read this. It says: Virginia's largest power company agreed today to $920 million in refunds and rate cuts for 2 million residential and business customers who have been overcharged for electricity, the biggest rate adjustment in State history [and that is under a] deal with utility regulators. If a company overcharges its consumers, the Government steps in and says: You have to pay it back. You took a surplus. You have to pay it back to the customers. Also, you have to drop the rates so we do not have surpluses in the future. But what does Washington do when it has a surplus? It starts to make plans on how to spend it. There is nobody that tells Washington you have to give it back, and they should. Comparing these numbers with the $100 billion tax cut, when we talk about a projected budget surplus, there could be as much as $1.3 trillion or more; or if we even look at just this surplus, it would be less than 10 percent of that projected surplus. I can assure you, there are plans already being made around this Congress of what to do and how to spend the other 90 percent. Americans, I believe, should be outraged, and a growing number are. They do not want Washington to grow even bigger--they want their money back. Mr. President, regardless of all these different surplus estimates, one thing is clear: it is not any action by the Federal Government that is producing this budget surplus. We must credit that turnaround to the working men and women who are fueling the robust American economy. These unexpected dollars have come directly from working Americans through taxes paid by corporations, individuals, and investors. This money belongs to the people. Washington should not stand first in line to take this money. It is only moral and fair to return it to them. Washington again, has no right to spend it on their behalf. With total taxation at an all-time high, it is critical that Congress cut taxes for working Americans. Taxes consumed about 19 percent of GDP when President Clinton took office. It now stands at 21.5 percent, the highest rate since World War II. This means every American, not just the rich, are paying more in taxes today than they did just 5 years ago. As proof of just how heavy the tax burden has become, taxpayers did not mark the arrival of Tax Freedom Day this year until May 10. That is the day on which working folks stop punching the clock just to pay Uncle Sam and begin working for themselves, and that is a full week later than when President Clinton took office. We all gave the Government another week of our time and money in the last 5 years to pay those higher taxes. This year, the taxpayers had to work 129 days before they could count a single penny of their salary as their own. In fact, it marks the latest-ever arrival of Tax Freedom Day. And that is not the whole picture, because if the cost of complying with the tax system itself were included in the calculations, Tax Freedom Day would be pushed forward another 13 days. As proof of just how far we have traveled--in the wrong direction-- Tax Freedom Day in 1925 arrived on February 6. This year it was May 10. After 16 major tax increases over the past 30 years, the need for tax relief has never been more pressing. Do I need to remind my colleagues that Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994 and retained control in 1996 because we were the champions of the taxpayers, the champions of the American workers? Did not the taxpayers elect us with the expectation that the new Congress would seize every opportunity to lessen the tax burden on America's families and shrink the size of Government? They did not elect a new majority expecting that Congress would be a collaborator in the President's tax-and-spend policies, that Congress would build a bigger, more expensive Government at the first chance it got and completely give up on its promise of significant tax relief. Unfortunately, that is exactly what Congress did. And if we do not slow it down now by providing some larger tax cuts, the Federal Government is going to explode in both size and cost. Again, that is not what I believe working Americans are asking for. Last year, after spending by the way, the $225 billion unexpected revenue windfall and busting the 1993 spending caps, Congress cut a deal with President Clinton and delivered tax cuts only one-third as large as what we had promised and worked for in 1994. The tax relief amounted to less than one cent of every dollar the Federal Government took from the taxpayers. With its measly $30 billion in tax cuts over five years, this year's Senate-passed budget resolution is no better. It spends more taxpayer dollars while continuing the path of the flawed budget deal struck between the Congressional leadership and President Clinton last year. Tax relief I believe is the right solution because it takes power out of the hands of Washington's big spenders and puts it back where it can do the most good and that is with America's families and job providers. When the much-bragged about Clinton tax increase of 1993 was passed by the Democrats, again, no Republican votes, but with this much- bragged about tax increase no one was out there asking working Americans how they were going to survive with less money in their paychecks. They were evidently going to have to try to do more with less, or go without. Congress did not go out and ask working Americans, if we raise your taxes, how are you going to do with less money? Americans were expected to do more with less or go without. But now, when we talk of even taking one penny for every $10, Congress says ``We cannot go without.'' To borrow a phrase from Ohio Congressman Traficant, ``Beam me up, Scotty!'' I am proud that during this year's budget debate, five Senators, myself included, reached agreement with the Senate leadership to include more tax relief in the budget for hardworking Americans. We agreed to take the higher tax relief number in either the House or Senate-passed resolution. We also agreed there should be reconciliation legislation to achieve those tax cuts. Carrying out these principles will improve the FY 1999 budget resolution, and it will help to forge a compromise between those who want massive tax relief and those who want massive spending. This will eventually help us not only to balance our budget and keep it balanced, but to reduce the size of the government and also let the American taxpayers keep a little more of their own money. With our improved fiscal condition and a large budget surplus, it should not be hard to achieve these goals. Then why is tax relief such a battle? Mr. President, there is a special interest group to represent every disgruntled, oppressed, and persecuted group of Americans to plead their case in the media and in the Halls of Congress. But where is the special interest group that represents the taxpayers? Where is the chorus of voices speaking up for the discontented multitude? Who will come to the Senate floor and plead the case of the taxpayers? I submit, Mr. President, that the American taxpayers are poorly represented by their Congress. Not only are the taxpayers heavily burdened, but their burden has been imposed by their own Government. Congress takes the taxpayers' precious dollars and spends them lavishly, at times recklessly. Congress demands more and more with little consideration for the sacrifices of those it taxes. Congress never seems to be satisfied. So is it any wonder that when the opportunity arises to give something back to the taxpayers, Congress balks? The taxpayers fuel the fire of government spending, and Congress demands that the furnace remain fully stoked. These are real people we are talking about, not faceless Social Security numbers. Yet Congress chooses not to see the faces of the families it taxes. By a single vote, this Congress can tell working Americans that it is going to take even more, and you can either work more--both spouses, overtime, two jobs--or go without, without money for your children's education, without health care insurance or child care, without a family vacation, without a night out. ``But wait,'' you can just hear Congress say, ``maybe we can create a new government program to help you. By the way, we will have to raise your taxes a little to pay for it.'' Mr. President, my colleagues and I who demanded that tax relief be an integral part of the Senate budget must not and will not back off from our commitments. We made those commitments in good faith, not only to each other, but most importantly, to America's taxpayers. Senators Ashcroft, Brownback, Inhofe, Smith, and myself are prepared to vote against any budget that fails to provide the full $101 or more billion in tax relief called for in the House budget resolution. We have made our intentions known to the Senate leadership. It is time that this Congress delivers on its promises to the taxpayers. We must not forget the lessons we learned in the past. In the 1950s, the Republican Party leadership deviated from the basic principles that distinguish us from the Democrats by adopting a fiscal policy of ``Republican austerity.'' This slowed the economy and therefore, the voters tossed out the Republican Congress and declined to elect a Republican president. The American people instead chose John F. Kennedy, a Democrat who promised tax cuts--and kept that promise. President Ronald Reagan also promised tax relief, and he delivered by proposing tax cuts totaling $747 billion. That equals $1.6 trillion in today's dollars. These massive tax cuts propelled the economy forward. President Reagan stood with Republican principles, and today we are still benefiting from his sound economic policy. This was done while the Congress faced deficits, not surpluses that we are enjoying today. In 1990, President Bush, unfortunately, reached a budget compromise with the Democrats to spend more and tax more. As a result, the American voters tossed him out for abandoning his promise not to raise taxes. Finally, history is a mirror. If we cannot keep our promise to the American people, we will lose a Republican Congress, and more importantly, a unique opportunity to create a sustainable economy, increase real income, and improve the living standard for working Americans. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed and frustrated by the reluctance of the Congress and the congressional leadership to provide substantial tax relief, despite projections of huge surpluses. Nothing I believe, can justify this. This Senator intends to stand firm on his promise to work for lower taxes that allow the working men and women of Minnesota and the 49 other states to keep more of their own money. I urge our leadership to follow. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I take a moment today to express my gratitude and offer my congratulations to Susan Carlson, the First Lady of the State of Minnesota. Susan Carlson will be honored tonight with a Leadership Award from the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome for her work as the Co-Chair of the Governor's Task Force on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Through the efforts of Mrs. Carlson, Minnesota is one of the first states to put in place a comprehensive plan to prevent Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and improve the quality of life for those already affected by Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. As we all know, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is perhaps the most preventable contributor to our nation's ever-increasing health care costs. Low-birth weights, which lead to health complications for infants, developmental disabilities, and learning disabilities represent the tragic results of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Clearly, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is preventable and we spare a great deal of future pain by educating expectant mothers and their families about the risks associated with alcohol during pregnancy. In its campaign to eliminate Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome combines national and community-based awareness and educational programs with resource and referral clearinghouses. Mr. President, again, I congratulate and thank Mrs. Carlson for her efforts. Minnesotans are fortunate to have her leadership on the important issue of preventing Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the National Summit on Retirement Savings which is taking place here in Washington today and tomorrow. I also want to use this occasion to introduce legislation that will empower a greater number of working Americans to save for their retirement through employer-sponsored retirement plans. In the course of the next 2 days, the 239 delegates to the National Summit on Retirement Savings will address an issue of great importance as the baby boom generation draws closer to retirement age and the future of Social Security remains uncertain. With savings rates at a 59-year low, and the revelation in the 1998 Social Security Trustees Report that Social Security is actuarially bankrupt, it is evident that we face what amounts to a retirement crisis. The less individuals save for their retirement, the greater the strain on an ailing Social Security system that is incapable of sustaining the fast-growing retired population. Yet studies show that an increasing number of Americans are depending on Social Security for their retirement income. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Social Security is the primary source of income for 80% of retired Americans, and practically the only source for 40% of retirees. Those who depend on Social Security for their retirement can expect a standard of living far lower than the one they enjoyed while in the work force. For instance, an individual who has an annual income of $15,000 per year who retires in 1998 at age 65 can expect Social Security to provide only one-half their previous income, and the replacement rate drops steadily when moving up the income bracket. Indeed, Social Security was never intended to be the major source of retirement savings that it seems to have become--its purpose was to serve as a single leg in a three-legged stool that would sustain Americans in their retirement years. Social Security's original purpose was to provide Americans with the minimal level of income in retirement that when combined with personal savings and employment-based pensions would give retirees the living standard they enjoyed before retirement. Mr. President, given these facts about Social Security and the decline in savings among Americans, it is crucial that steps be taken to ensure that the three-legged stool does not collapse under the weight of the growing retired population. It is true that recent steps taken by Congress, particularly the 1996 enactment of the SIMPLE retirement plan, have succeed in increasing employee participation in employer-sponsored retirement plans. However, 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 these types of employer- based retirement systems. This is particularly true for small employers with less than 100 employees, for whom the resulting benefits do not outweigh the administrative costs. Consequently, only 42% of all 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 1998. This legislation will create a new retirement option for small business owners with 100 or fewer employees and it would be similar to the SIMPLE plan and the SMART plan President Clinton proposed in his fiscal year 1999 budget. However, my proposal differs somewhat from these two plans in that it would allow the same level of benefits--both to employers and employees--as larger employers who maintain traditional qualified plans. Furthermore, upon retirement or separation of service, employees would receive 100% account value. To offset the high costs associated with starting a pension plan, at the centerpiece of this proposal is a tax cut equal to 50% of the administrative and retirement education expenses incurred for the first five years of a plan's operation. In addition, participating businesses would be exempt from some of the more burdensome administrative requirements associated with qualified plans. That exemption would be in exchange for the employers' agreement to provide a minimum benefit of 3% to all employees who satisfy a minimum age requirement of 21 years old and the minimum service requirement of 1,000 hours during the preceding calendar year. Mr. President, small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities, providing millions of jobs nationwide. This bill I am introducing has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It has also been endorsed by the National Association of Women Small Business Owners and also of 220 small businesses in Minnesota alone. So it has very strong endorsement from the small business community. Small business owners want to help their employees to save for their retirement, yet many are unable to do so as a result of rigid Government policies that seemingly have little regard for the plight of the small employer. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to give small employers the ability they have long sought to help their employees save for their retirement.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of S. 2130 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the National Summit on Retirement Savings which is taking place here in Washington today and tomorrow. I also want to use this occasion to introduce legislation that will empower a greater number of working Americans to save for their retirement through employer-sponsored retirement plans. In the course of the next 2 days, the 239 delegates to the National Summit on Retirement Savings will address an issue of great importance as the baby boom generation draws closer to retirement age and the future of Social Security remains uncertain. With savings rates at a 59-year low, and the revelation in the 1998 Social Security Trustees Report that Social Security is actuarially bankrupt, it is evident that we face what amounts to a retirement crisis. The less individuals save for their retirement, the greater the strain on an ailing Social Security system that is incapable of sustaining the fast-growing retired population. Yet studies show that an increasing number of Americans are depending on Social Security for their retirement income. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Social Security is the primary source of income for 80% of retired Americans, and practically the only source for 40% of retirees. Those who depend on Social Security for their retirement can expect a standard of living far lower than the one they enjoyed while in the work force. For instance, an individual who has an annual income of $15,000 per year who retires in 1998 at age 65 can expect Social Security to provide only one-half their previous income, and the replacement rate drops steadily when moving up the income bracket. Indeed, Social Security was never intended to be the major source of retirement savings that it seems to have become--its purpose was to serve as a single leg in a three-legged stool that would sustain Americans in their retirement years. Social Security's original purpose was to provide Americans with the minimal level of income in retirement that when combined with personal savings and employment-based pensions would give retirees the living standard they enjoyed before retirement. Mr. President, given these facts about Social Security and the decline in savings among Americans, it is crucial that steps be taken to ensure that the three-legged stool does not collapse under the weight of the growing retired population. It is true that recent steps taken by Congress, particularly the 1996 enactment of the SIMPLE retirement plan, have succeed in increasing employee participation in employer-sponsored retirement plans. However, 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 these types of employer- based retirement systems. This is particularly true for small employers with less than 100 employees, for whom the resulting benefits do not outweigh the administrative costs. Consequently, only 42% of all 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 1998. This legislation will create a new retirement option for small business owners with 100 or fewer employees and it would be similar to the SIMPLE plan and the SMART plan President Clinton proposed in his fiscal year 1999 budget. However, my proposal differs somewhat from these two plans in that it would allow the same level of benefits--both to employers and employees--as larger employers who maintain traditional qualified plans. Furthermore, upon retirement or separation of service, employees would receive 100% account value. To offset the high costs associated with starting a pension plan, at the centerpiece of this proposal is a tax cut equal to 50% of the administrative and retirement education expenses incurred for the first five years of a plan's operation. In addition, participating businesses would be exempt from some of the more burdensome administrative requirements associated with qualified plans. That exemption would be in exchange for the employers' agreement to provide a minimum benefit of 3% to all employees who satisfy a minimum age requirement of 21 years old and the minimum service requirement of 1,000 hours during the preceding calendar year. Mr. President, small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities, providing millions of jobs nationwide. This bill I am introducing has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It has also been endorsed by the National Association of Women Small Business Owners and also of 220 small businesses in Minnesota alone. So it has very strong endorsement from the small business community. Small business owners want to help their employees to save for their retirement, yet many are unable to do so as a result of rigid Government policies that seemingly have little regard for the plight of the small employer. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to give small employers the ability they have long sought to help their employees save for their retirement.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Thomas as co- sponsor of S. Res. 240, a resolution which hopefully will focus more Congressional attention on the situation in Laos. With 50,000 Hmong and 7,000 other ethnic Lao living in Minnesota, I am well aware that the atrocities being committed in that country and the lack of progress toward a democratic government are far more serious than press reports would lead us to believe. It is rare indeed that any of us, even those of us who serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ever hear anything about Laos. Yet many Lao and Hmong fought with us in the Vietnam War. In fact, they are still being ``punished'' for their loyalty to the United States through continued violence against them by the Lao government. But, the State Department recently responded to an inquiry I made by saying they do not see evidence of abuses. We owe the Hmong and other Lao a great debt of gratitude for their service during the Vietnam War. We owe them our renewed efforts to end the violence in Laos and to enforce the agreements signed by Communists in Laos in 1962 and 1973 which committed them to a coalition government including the Lao Royal Family. As you may know, this government was overthrown in 1975, and now the country is under sole control of the Lao People's Democratic Party. Since there has been so little focus on Laos, Mr. President, there has been little progress there. While the Lao government approved a Constitution in 1990 claiming human rights protection, and while Laos has signed international agreements on civil and political rights and is a member of ASEAN, the record shows these promises are being ignored. Several months ago, the United Lao Movement for Democracy of Minnesota hosted a staff briefing. The briefing included a videotape which showed death, violence, and evidence that ``yellow rain'' has been used against Lao citizens recently--despite comments by the State Department these atrocities do not exist. We were told during the briefing that the ``killing fields'' are still going on in the countryside, mostly against the Hmong. The leaders of the Minnesota group, Shoua Cha, Xiong Pao Moua, and Cha Vang have been instrumental in calling these atrocities to our attention and maintaining valuable contact with the people of Laos. There were many cries on the tape that war hero General Vang Pao should return to Laos to help stop the violence. Mr. President, the Thomas-Grams resolution expresses Senate opposition to human rights abuses in Laos, including religious persecution. It calls for free and fair elections and a process toward democracy. I would like to call attention to one American, Steve Young, an expert and activist in Indochinese matters for over 30 years. Steve has helped us focus on problems in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, and I have always valued his counsel. If Steve, and my many Hmong and Lao constituents, say there is a serious problem here, I believe them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article by Steve Young printed in the May 14, 1998 edition of the Minneapolis Star Tribune be printed in the Record. Mr. President, to those seeking changes in Laos, this resolution provides hope. I ask that my colleagues give it their support, as an expression by the Senate of our renewed interest in improving the situation in Laos. Please join me in co-sponsoring this resolution and facilitating its passage in the near future.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator for allowing me to finish this statement. Just to finish, Mr. President, we are talking about the tobacco bill and addiction. And I just say, let us forget about the figures and rhetoric for a moment that is surrounding this bill and ask the more important question: Why are we persecuting these people because of an addiction? Now again, if someone is addicted to alcohol, are we going to increase taxes on them? If someone is addicted to drugs, are we going to go out and increases taxes on them? Of course not, because we give them all sorts of Government benefits amounting to thousands of dollars a year if they are addicted to alcohol or other illegal drugs. But if you are addicted to nicotine, Congress wants to tax you as much as $1,400 a year. And I believe it simply does not make sense. It also does not make sense for us to be discussing this legislation as if it were a tobacco settlement. This is not a tobacco settlement. It is a tax increase to pay for increased Government spending programs. Supporters of this tax increase assert that if you vote against this bill, you are for big tobacco--if you vote against this bill, you are for big tobacco--if you vote for it, you are compassionate and you are taking a stand for the health of our children. But this isn't really about our children, is it? It is about lining Washington's coffers with more taxpayer dollars. Let us talk about the statistic that 3,000 kids start smoking every day. That statistic has been thrown around the floor of the Senate and the White House with complete disregard for the facts. In his editorial, entitled ``Child's Ploy,'' Jacob Sullum points out--and I quote-- This estimate comes from an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in January of 1989. Based on data from a National Health Interview Survey, the authors estimated that one million ``young persons'' became regular smokers each year during the 1980s [again, that one million ``young persons'' became regular smokers each year during the 1980s], which amounts to about three thousand a day. That figure refers to 20-year-olds. And since the study did not include data for anyone younger than that, somehow these now ``young persons'' have metamorphosed into kids. At least one commentator on CNBC referred to them as ``babies.'' It started out as people 20 years old, ``young persons,'' and somehow it got transformed into ``kids.'' And even one commentator referred to them as ``babies.'' I think this demonstrates how far the crusaders are willing to go to punish and tax adult smokers in order to fund Washington's wish list for more Government spending. There was another point Mr. Sullum made which I think deserves to be voiced on the floor. He wrote: While it may be true that the young are especially attracted to smoking, it is probably also true that people who are especially attracted to smoking tend to start young. Mr. President, I agree, we should be doing more to reduce and discourage our children from smoking. I do not believe the legislation before us is truly about reducing teen smoking or recovering the Government's cost of providing health care to smokers. It is about money. When I ran for the Senate 4 years ago, I made a very simple promise during my campaign. I said I would never vote to increase taxes. The bill before us does just that--increases taxes on those who use tobacco products, who largely are the ones who can least afford a $1,400-a-year tax increase. The lion's share of the hundreds of billions of dollars collected under this bill will come from families and individuals who earn $30,000 a year or less. That is simply wrong. During debate on this bill, there have been some who have questioned the sincerity of our concern for the well-being of America's working people. They go on and on to say, if we are so concerned about their well-being, we should vote for an increase in the minimum wage later this year. I guess that will be great for the teenagers who, by the way, hold most of the minimum wage jobs in America, because they then will be able to afford the cigarettes on which we are just about to hike the taxes. It has been said by proponents that everyone and anyone who votes against this legislation has been bought off by big tobacco and we don't care about our children. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Frankly, I resent that type of accusation. During the Budget Committee's consideration of the budget resolution, I voted for what I thought was the most appropriate use of any tobacco settlement funds--dedicate them to Medicare. After all, isn't that where most of the smoking-related illness costs are? There was another important provision from the budget resolution as well. We increased funding for youth smoking cessation programs. The budget assumed $825 million would be spent on trying to prevent teens from smoking and helping those who are trying to quit. The States are increasing their efforts in this regard as well. This is a positive approach and addresses the underlying problems that we face. It should be noted that our budget this year more than doubled the amount of money spent on preventing teen smoking than President Clinton had even requested in his budget, and he assumed at that time that there would be a tobacco tax. So we included twice as much in our budget, not assuming that. This legislation before the Senate today is not about protecting kids from tobacco. It is not about punishing big tobacco. It is not about health care either. This is just one more way for Washington to take and spend more of the taxpayers' money. Mr. President, if and when this legislation is fully phased in, Federal and State Governments will be profiting more by the sale of tobacco products than the manufacturer. Again, Mr. President, if this bill is phased in, State and Federal Governments will be profiting more by the sale of tobacco products than the manufacturer. Something is horribly wrong when tax rates reach that proportion. Mr. President, in 1997, a man in Kentucky pleaded guilty to one of the largest cigarette smuggling cases in our Nation's history. Over the period of just 1 year, this individual made nearly $30 million--$30 million transporting contraband cigarettes. I learned of this story from the National Association of Police Organizations, which sent me a letter also opposing S. 1415, again, because of the threat of increased black market activity, which is clearly already occurring. Those of us with border States know how prevalent and easy smuggling already is. Will we just shut down our borders, or will we search every person crossing them? Other law enforcement organizations have weighed in, sharing basically the same concerns about a potential black market: The Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the International Union of the Police Associations, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. All of these organizations, whose primary duty is to enforce the law of our Nation, recognize this legislation will be the catalyst for a huge black market in cigarettes. As a result, teen smoking will probably increase, not decrease. Supporters of this legislation claim we need to increase taxes to get a shock value from it. I want to remind my colleagues of what four very bright teenagers had to say at a House Commerce Committee hearing on youth smoking when asked if price were really a factor in whether teens buy cigarettes. One of the teens said if money were a huge issue, then kids wouldn't be buying marijuana as much. I believe this teen has it right and also brings up another important issue. When asked what they believed to be the most pressing problem for our Nation's high schools, all agreed that alcohol and marijuana were much more serious. If the same commitment this administration and this Congress have shown to fighting tobacco had been applied to the drug problem, I think we would be hearing a very different answer. Under this legislation, we will fund massive new Government programs for tobacco but we will remain silent about the drug problem in our Nation. I question whether this is the wisest course for us to take. In closing, I cannot in good conscience support the Washington money grab, masquerading here as the National Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Act. If we were being honest with the American people, the bill would be entitled ``the National Tobacco Tax and Spend Act.'' It is not about public health or protecting our kids or cutting big tobacco down to size; it is all about taxes, taxes, taxes. This Senator is not going to be bullied into raising taxes on America's hard-working men and women. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS. It would be for only about another 5 to 7 minutes--less than 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express some of my concerns dealing with the tobacco tax increase legislation that we are close to considering, including how we deal with this country's tobacco farmers. I believe we should do what we can to assist tobacco farmers and their communities' transition for a supposed decrease in demand for tobacco products that will result from this bill's passage. However, I would like to share this cartoon by Mr. Ed Fischer which illustrates a very important point: Do we value tobacco farming and tobacco-dependent communities more than other producers and their communities? ``Guess which farmers in trouble will get a huge government bailout?'' I have serious doubts this legislation will actually reduce tobacco growth and consumption in this country as much as proponents claim. As such, I question whether the type of support we are willing to rush in and throw at tobacco producers and tobacco- dependent communities is warranted. My understanding is, under both proposals, there is no requirement that tobacco farmers actually stop producing tobacco; they will just have to assume all the risk, like other farmers under the freedom to farm bill which was signed into law in April of 1996. The freedom to farm bill contained transition payments, but those payments pale in comparison to what we are talking about here. All crops combined under the transition to Freedom to Farm--corn, wheat, soybeans, et cetera-- amounted to less than $1,500 per acre over 7 years. This bill would amount to about $18,000 per acre over 3 years. Yes, it is a phase-out of the tobacco program, but let us be fair to the farmers, but also let us be fair to the taxpayers. Mr. President, I am very sympathetic to the plight of tobacco farmers, their families and their communities, who suffer as a direct result of Federal policy. The tobacco farmers are certainly not alone in facing unfavorable--even crushing--circumstances at the hands of the Congress. The point I now propose is that we cannot hope to maintain any semblance of consistency if we favor one agriculture product over all others. Let us not get caught up in the hype of this tobacco legislation today to forge a plan that will cost taxpayers more than necessary. Let us be fair, but let us be reasonable. How can we explain why we favor one product over another? My colleagues and I from the Upper Midwest have been fighting a constant battle against Federal dairy policy for years. And again just look at this cartoon: ``Guess which farmers in trouble will get a huge government bailout * * *'' The dairy producers of the Upper Midwest have long been disadvantaged by having to bear the burden of unjustifiable dairy policy which does not reflect the realities of modern dairy economics. This current Federal policy--specifically, Class I milk price differentials--is widely recognized as antiquated, unjustifiable, and patently unfair. In fact, USDA's current Federal marketing order system was deemed ``arbitrary and capricious'' by a Federal district court judge late last year. The case brought against USDA has been in the courts for 7 years, and the judge's ruling was no less than the fourth such proceeding in the history of the case. The courts have ruled four separate times the Federal dairy program is arbitrary and capricious. Bottom line, it is unfair. And what has been the response of the USDA? Not to accept the decision but to appeal. The Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in agriculture, but it is doing so in this case. I hate to be arguing the dairy issue during the debate on a tobacco bill today, but I believe it supports my argument that: if we are to go about bailouts in a reasonable manner, we should address the Upper Midwest dairy farmers as well. Would anyone in this Senate vote to pay our dairy farmers $18,000 an acre? I doubt it. Dairy farmers have endured inequities for decades. We in Minnesota in fact are losing an average of three dairy farms every single day. The irony is that milk is a health product. It is a product we encourage our children to consume. How can we possibly suggest that Minnesota's dairy industry does not deserve equal protection from this Congress? Mr. President, I would also like to express my opposition to S. 1415 in its entirety. I have listened to a number of my colleagues come to the floor and claim many things and cite many statistics. One of those statistics was that 75 percent of regular smokers could not quit if they wanted to. While I will not take issue with this figure, I do have a problem with the fact that proponents of this bill are so willing to take advantage of these smokers' inability to quit. Let us forget about the figures and rhetoric for a moment and ask the more important question: Why are we persecuting these people because of their addiction? If someone is addicted to alcohol, are we going to increase taxes on them? If someone is addicted to drugs, are we going to increase taxes on them? Of course not, because we give them all sorts of Government benefits amounting to thousands of dollars a year. So if you are addicted to one type of drug, the Government is going to give you thousands of dollars a year in assistance, but if you are addicted to another type of drug--in this case nicotine--we are going to tax you more money every year. Congress wants to tax you, in fact, at a rate of about $1,400 a year. And it simply does not make sense. It does not make sense for us to be discussing this legislation as if it were a tobacco settlement. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much. (The remarks of Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of S. 2091 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this morning on behalf of all those who serve their fellow citizens through their active participation in the Nation's emergency care system to introduce the Emergency Medical Services Act. Mr. President, as a Senator who is deeply concerned about the ever- expanding size and scope of the Federal Government, I have long believed Washington is too big, too clumsy and too removed to deal effectively with many of the issues in which it already meddles. However, I also believe there's an overriding public health interest in ensuring a viable, seamless, nationwide EMS system. By designating this week as National EMS Week, the Nation recognizes those individual who make the EMS system work. There is no more appropriate time to reaffirm our commitment to EMS by addressing some of the problems the system is presented with daily. I have been privileged to get to know the men and women who dedicate their talents to serving others in an emergency. We have together discussed problems within the EMS system and concluded there are areas in which the Federal Government can help. The original result of our discussions concerning the Federal role in EMS was S. 238, the Emergency Medical Services Act [EMSEA]. When I introduced S. 238 on January 30, 1997, I acknowledged that it wasn't intended to solve all the problems EMS faces; it was merely a first step toward a meaningful national dialog on EMs. Indeed, this first step was a productive one. Last summer, I assembled EMS and health care leaders in Minnesota, asked them to take another look at the EMSEA, and report back to me with their thoughts. In January, I received a copy of their report. I was extremely pleased with their efforts and have used those suggestions as the basis for the legislative language comprising the new Emergency Medical Services Efficiency Act I am introducing today. I have often said that Congress has a tendency to wait until there's a crisis before it acts, but Congress cannot wait until there's a crisis in the EMS system before we take steps to improve it. There is simply too much at stake. Whether we realize it or not, we depend on and expect the constant readiness of emergency medical services. To ensure that readiness, we need to make efficient and effective efforts to secure the stability of the system. This has been my focus in redrafting this legislation. There are many similarities between S. 238 and the new bill I am introducing today. For instance, we continue to assert that the most important thing we can do to maintain the vitality of the EMS system is to compel the government to reimburse for the services it says it will pay for under Medicare. In the meetings I have had with ambulance providers, emergency medical technicians emergency physicians, nurses, and other EMS-related personnel, their most common request is to base reimbursement on a ``prudent layperson'' standard, rather than the ultimate diagnosis reached in the emergency room. While the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 [BBA] contained a provision basing reimbursement for emergency services on the prudent layperson standard, we have yet to see HCFA's interpretation of the provision and whether it will include ambulance services. I have written letters to HCFA and Senate Finance Committee Chairman William Roth indicating my understanding that ambulance services would be considered part of ``emergency services'' as defined in the BBA. I have been given no assurances from HCFA that they intend to include ambulance services as part of the ``emergency services'' definition in the balanced budget agreement. To illustrate how prevalent this problem is, I want to share with you a case my staff worked on relating to Medicare reimbursement for ambulance services. Please keep in mind that this is the fee-for- service Medicare program. It was back in 1994 that Andrew Bernecker of Braham, MN, was mowing with a power scythe and tractor when he fell. The rotating blades of the scythe severely cut his upper arm. Mr. Bernecker tried to walk toward his home but was too faint from the blood loss, so he crawled the rest of the way. Afraid that his wife, who was 86 years old at the time, would panic-- or worse, have a heart attack--he crawled to the pump and washed as much blood and dirt off as he could. His wife saw him and immediately called 911 for an ambulance. He was rushed to the hospital where Mr. Bernecker ultimately had orthopedic surgery and spent some time in the intensive care unit. In response to the bills submitted to Medicare, the Government sent this reply with respect to the ambulance billing: Medicare Regulations Provide that certain conditions must be met in order for ambulance services to be covered. Medicare pays for ambulance services only when the use of any other method of transportation would endanger your health. The Government denied payment, claiming the ambulance wasn't medically necessary. Apparently, Medicare believed the man's wife--who was, remember, 86 years old--should have been able to drive him to the hospital for treatment. Mr. and Mrs. Bernecker appealed, but were denied, and they began paying what they could afford each month on the ambulance bill. After several years of paying $20 a month, they finally paid off the ambulance bill. Medicare however, later reopened the case and reimbursed the Berneckers. I believe the experience this family had with Medicare's denial of payment for ambulance services happens far too often, and Congress needs to make sure it doesn't happen again. Another similarity between the two versions of this bill is the creation of a Federal commission on emergency medical services to make recommendations and to help provide input on how Federal regulatory actions affect all types of EMS providers. EMS needs a seat at the table when health care and other regulatory policy is made. Few things are more frustrating for ambulance services than trying to navigate and comply with the tangled mess of laws and regulations from the Federal level on down, only to receive either a reimbursement that doesn't cover the costs of providing the service or otherwise a flat denial of the payment. Mr. President, I came across this chart last year, the chart I have with me on the floor this morning, that demonstrates how a Medicare claim moves from submittal to payment, denial, or write-off by the ambulance provider. If you look at this chart, I ask you, tell me how a rural ambulance provider who depends on volunteers has the manpower or the expertise to navigate through this entire mess. And, in the event that it is navigated successfully, ambulance services are regularly reimbursed at a level that doesn't even cover their costs. Now let us talk about how much it costs to run just one ambulance. There is the cost of the dispatcher who remains on the line to give prearrival assistance, the ambulance itself, which costs from $85,000 to $100,000 to put on the road, the radios, beepers, and the cellular telephones used to communicate between the dispatcher, the ambulance, and the hospital, the supplies and equipment in the ambulance, including defibrillators, stretchers, EKG monitors, and bandages, and the two emergency medical technicians or paramedics who both drive the ambulance and provide care to the patient, the vehicle repair, maintenance, and insurance costs, and the liability insurance for the paramedics. As you can see, the list goes on and on. Yes, the costs can be high, but it is clear to me that, with the uncertainty ambulance providers face out in the field each day, they need to be prepared for every type of injury or condition. Mr. President, that is expensive, but we as consumers expect that in the case of an emergency. I am convinced those who complain about the high costs of emergency care would be aghast if the ambulance that arrived to care for them in an emergency didn't have the lifesaving equipment needed for their treatment. Let us be honest with ourselves: We want the quickest and best service when we face an emergency--and the bottom line is that costs money. Mr. President, many of our political debates in Washington center around how to better prepare for the 21st century. I have always supported research and efforts to expand the limits of technology and continue to believe technological innovations and advances in biomedical and basic scientific research hold tremendous promise. Under the new bill I am introducing today, Federal grant programs will be clarified to ensure that EMS agencies are eligible for programs that relate to highway safety, rural development, and tele-health technology. Emergency medical services have come a long way since the first ambulance services began in Cleveland and New York City way back during the 1860's. Indeed, the scientific and technological advances have created a new practice of medicine in just 2 short decades, and have dramatically improved the prospects of surviving any serious trauma. There is reason to believe further advances will have equally meaningful results. Innovations like tele-health technology may soon allow EMT's, nurses, and paramedics to perform more sophisticated procedures under a physician's supervision via real-time, ambulance-mounted monitors and cameras networked to emergency departments in specific service areas. By not considering EMS agencies for Federal grant dollars, we may cause significant delays in the application of current technologies. That would be a mistake. Perhaps the most dramatic departure the reintroduced bill takes from S. 238 related to the designation of a lead Federal agency for EMS. In August of 1996, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration and the Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau issued their report, ``Emergency Medical Services: Agenda for the Future.'' The report outlined specific ways EMS can be improved, and one of the stated goals was the authorization of a ``lead Federal agency.'' My original legislation instructed the Secretaries of Health and Transportation to confer on and facilitate the transfer of all EMS- related functions to the Department of Transportation. While we recognized that there would be some who would applaud the notion and others who would berate it, the suggestion compelled people to consider the issue and offer alternative approaches. The recommendations of the advisory committee and the comments I have received from national groups indicate we have yet to reach a solution to the problematic designation of a lead Federal agency. As such, under the new legislation, we call for an independent study to determine which existing agency or new board would best serve as the lead Federal entity for EMS. The concerns expressed to me about designating the Department of Transportation as the lead Federal agency were virtually identical to the concerns about granting lead-agency designation to the Department of Health and Human Services. It just didn't seem to fit. Therefore, I believe the most appropriate action is to take our time and get it right by conducting this study. Mr. President, in 1995, there were approximately 100 million visits to emergency departments across the country. Roughly 20 to 25 percent of those visits started with a call for an ambulance. Each one of those calls is important, especially to those seeking assistance and the responding EMS personnel. The Nation owes a great deal to the EMS personnel who have dedicated themselves to their profession because they care about people and they want to help those who are suffering. Nobody gets rich as a professional paramedic, and there is even less compensation as a volunteer. The field of emergency medical services presents many challenges--but offers the reward of knowing you helped someone in need of assistance. Every year, the American Ambulance Association recognizes EMS personnel across the country for their contributions to the profession, and bestows upon them the Stars of Life Award. This year, 124 individuals have been chosen by their peers to be honored for demonstrating exceptional kindness and selflessness in performing their duties. I ask unanimous consent to have printed the 1998 American Ambulance Association Stars of Life honorees in the Record.