Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to take a few minutes this afternoon to rise and speak in support of Senator Coverdell's education bill, S. 1133. Mr. President, today the Senate continues its debate on this very important bill, a bill that is really out to promote education alternatives. It is a far-reaching bill which advances educational options, one which promotes quality education where it can best be achieved and that, Mr. President, is at the local level and by family involvement. It is sound policy, and I believe it is long overdue. S. 1133, the Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act, is a modest bill, but it is a very important step forward for restoring decisionmaking authority in the hands of parents and families and, again, this is where that authority belongs. The heart of this bill is simply a measure that would allow families to save for their children's education and without tax penalty. S. 1133 is the Senate's version of the education IRA which has already passed in the House. The bill, commonly referred to as the A+ savings accounts, would expand the college educational savings accounts established in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, and that would then include primary and secondary education as well. A+ accounts would also increase the maximum allowable annual contributions from $500 to $2,000 per child. The money could be used without tax penalty to pay for a variety of education-related expenses for students in K through 12, as well as college expenses. A number of mega-dollar, pumped-up political Band-Aids are being offered in the form of amendments to the A+ accounts legislation. It would be nice to think that we could solve the problem of education by just spending more and more money, but unfortunately, that does not work. The United States is the world leader in national spending per student. Again, the United States is the world leader in national spending per student. Yet, our test scores show that our system is failing our children. Test results released in February show that American high school seniors scored far below their peers from other countries in math and science. Education Secretary Riley called the scores ``unacceptable'' and indicated that schools are failing to establish appropriate academic standards. Legislation like A+ accounts would help direct responsibility and accountability, again, where it belongs--at the family level where families can make decisions and take responsibility for their children's education. The A+ accounts legislation includes many important legislative initiatives beyond the savings accounts. For instance, it fosters employer-supported education for employees by extending the tax credit to the year 2002. I hear time and time again employers are desperate for well-trained employees, and this legislation allows them to continue to provide that training. Graduate level courses would be permitted under this exclusion as well as undergraduate courses. If we are ever going to be able to tackle the shortage of high-tech employees, this tax incentive is very crucial. Additionally, the A+ accounts bill would assist local governments in issuing bonds for school construction by increasing the small-issuer exemption from $10 million to $15 million, provided that at least $10 million of the bonds are issued to finance public schools. It is estimated that 600 schools would be improved under this legislation. Our bill also provides tax-free treatment for students who receive National Health Corps scholarships. Students can thereby exclude the scholarship value from their taxable income. That would provide further important education assistance when it is most needed. A complimentary amendment to the A+ accounts is the Investment in America's Future bill. That was Senator Gorton's block granting amendment. Under this bill, most federally funded K-12 programs, except for special education, would have been consolidated and the dollars sent directly to local school districts--free from the usual Washington red tape. This would have ensured our education dollars would go to students, as opposed to going to bureaucrats. The Gorton amendment was not a cutting measure. The bill maintained that if Federal funding were to fall below the levels agreed to in the 1997 budget agreement, then the program would revert back to funding categorical programs. Mr. President, there are a number of additional amendments, crucial for education, which greatly enhance the core A+ accounts legislation. The teacher testing and merit pay amendment would serve to retain competent teachers by providing incentives to States to implement programs geared at rewarding successful, high-quality teachers. The Coats amendment would increase to 110 percent deductions that individuals and families could take on charitable contributions to schools and programs aimed at poor children. Another important amendment would expand literacy programs that are so important to assist in poverty areas. So this simple and modest bill fosters education through families, through employers, and through local governments. We could accomplish so much through the A+ accounts package. Common sense would have had us pass these measures a long time ago. But, unfortunately, tired, groundless attacks continue to hang on. And the charge I hear most frequently is that ``education savings accounts and tax breaks for parents would shift tax dollars away from public schools.'' That simply is not the case. More education dollars under parental control would actually promote education by encouraging parents to save, to invest in, and support programs and materials that facilitate and help provide the right option for a child's education. Nothing, Mr. President, would be taken away from public education resources--nothing. The A+ accounts help working families by encouraging savings and enabling families to make plans which shape a child's future. They are directed at low- and middle-income families, not at the wealthy families which currently have more educational options for their children. It seems ironic to me that some of the loudest opponents of these savings accounts are high-income and high-option individuals who can now afford to send their own children to private schools--and often do. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the great majority of families expected to take advantage of the education savings accounts are families that have incomes of $75,000 or less. These are the families who need those savings options and need the incentives the most. So, Mr. President, the bill provides educational alternatives for working families. These are very important options to improve the education of our children. I urge my colleagues to join in and support this very important education initiative. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Texas for all her fine work on this amendment. I rise today to offer my strong support to Senator Hutchison's sense of the Senate calling on Congress to look at and to reserve any future budget surplus for tax relief and natural debt reduction or Social Security reform. But this amendment represents, I believe, some very sound, responsible fiscal policy, and again I commend Senator Hutchison for her leadership and her efforts on this very important issue. The question of how to use the potential budget surplus has been debated extensively before this Chamber. In my view, tax relief and debt reduction and Social Security reform are all equally important. Tax relief will reduce the growing tax burden on our American families. As Senator Hutchison pointed out, from 38 percent to more than 50 percent of the incomes of our average families in this country are going to support government rather than supporting their families. But if we give tax relief, it will increase incentives to work, save and invest. It will help keep our economy strong. Debt reduction and Social Security reform will address our long-term fiscal imbalances. These are two closely related issues, and I believe they go hand in hand. We can and we should be addressing both of these at the same time. There are compelling reasons for supporting this amendment. When we talk about how to use the budget surplus, let us not forget those who generated this surplus in the first place. If, as the administration is predicting, we do achieve a budget surplus, that surplus will have come directly from working Americans, from taxes paid by corporations, from individuals and investors. Clearly, this money belongs to the American people. It has been an overcharge. It is only fair to return it to the taxpayers who earned that money in the first place. Families today, again, are taxed at the highest level since World War II, with 38 percent to 50 percent of a typical family budget going to pay taxes on the Federal, State and local level. Last year's tax cuts, I believe, moved us in the right direction, but in reality those tax cuts were too little, too late, too small. After spending the unexpected $225 billion revenue windfall last year, busting the 1993 spending caps, Washington delivered tax cuts only one-third as large as lawmakers had promised back in 1994. Recent polls show that 89 percent of the American people believe that taxes on all levels of government should not consume more than 25 percent of their income. Again, 89 percent of Americans believe that all levels of taxes should not consume more than 25 percent of their income, and 77 percent also believe that estate taxes should be eliminated. Lower tax rates, again, increase incentives to work, save and invest. They help families to maximize their income and improve their standard of living. They allow families to allocate their precious dollars to meet their own needs, not to go out and meet the needs of disconnected spenders located in Washington. So, again, cut taxes and families today, who are forced to scrimp just to cover their monthly bills and their taxes, would find that they have more money to spend on their children's education, on their health care expenses, on food, clothing and insurance, et cetera. If we are truly interested in giving our families the tools that they need to help raise their children, isn't it about time that Washington cut their taxes instead of limiting their choices? Beyond the direct benefits to families, tax cuts can also have a substantial and very positive impact on the economy as a whole. John F. Kennedy proved it. Ronald Reagan proved it. So we should not spend a budget surplus that does not yet exist. If a surplus, however, does develop, the Government has no claim on it because the Government did not generate it. So I do not believe Washington should be first in line to reap the benefits of any surplus. A surplus, again, will be the direct result of the hard work of the American people, and, therefore, it should be returned to the American people, either in the form of additional tax relief or beginning to pay down this tremendous $5.6 trillion national debt. So, Mr. President, a vote for the Hutchison-Grams amendment is a vote for families. I believe it is a vote for fiscal sensibility in Washington, and I urge my colleagues very strongly to give it their support. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that projected budget surpluses should be dedicated to preserving and strengthening Social Security. This is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It asks Congress and the President to commit any budget surplus to reducing the Social Security payroll tax and use the tax reduction to set up personal retirement accounts for America's working men and women. Mr. President, the latest report from the Treasury Department shows that we may have a budget surplus as large as $60 to $80 billion this year, if revenues continue to grow at the current rate. As I have argued repeatedly, this surplus comes directly from taxes paid by hard- working Americans, and it is only fair to return it to them in the form of tax relief, national debt reduction, or Social Security reform. We all agree it is vitally important to save and strengthen Social Security. Many of my colleagues believe we should use the entire budget surplus to save the system, but the real question is how to do it. Finally, this amendment is complementary to Senator Roth's amendment. I believe the Roth amendment is an excellent one. I support it. The only difference is mine has the payroll tax reduction.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Knights of Columbus and join them in the celebration of 116 years of carrying out their mission of ``Unity, Service, and Patriotism.'' In the fall of 1881, a group of men, under the direction of Father Michael J. McGivney, met at St. Mary's Church in New Haven, Connecticut, for the purpose of establishing a fraternal benefit society within the Catholic Church. That small meeting was the genesis for a movement which now claims nearly 1.6 million members (4.5 million including family members) in countries throughout the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific. After being granted legal corporation on March 29, 1882, the Knights of Columbus began spreading their message of pride in faith and nation. Indeed, the very name Knights of Columbus was chosen to reflect this premise, as it signifies the importance of Christopher Columbus' discovery of America to the Catholic Church. In times of national crisis, the Knights of Columbus have consistently heeded the call for service and sacrifice. This was perhaps best exemplified during two of the most pivotal events in our Nation's history which occurred this century: World War I and World War II. During these trying times, the Knights of Columbus offered an array of support programs for the men and women of our armed forces, including bond drives and blood donor programs. In addition, at the conclusion of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, the Knights of Columbus aided in the crusade against Communist expansion by sponsoring 1,300 educational discussion groups, as well as speakers' bureaus, advertisements and radio addresses. The Knights of Columbus' efforts during the Cold War were acknowledged by President Harry S. Truman. While those accomplishments are indeed admirable, equally impressive are the often unsung works undertaken by individual Knights of Columbus Councils each day. In 1996, Knights of Columbus members reported 48,966,132 hours of volunteer service and donated $105,976,102 to charity. Currently, 229 Knights of Columbus Councils serve parishes and communities throughout my home state of Minnesota. The services undertaken by each Council cover many areas and aid a number of different charities and causes, ranging from providing loans for college students to assisting the sick and the elderly in getting to Sunday Mass. Other examples of service activities in Minnesota include: a fund drive in support of the construction of Catholic schools conducted by Council 7604 in Eagan, Minnesota; the bowling team from Council 961 in St. Cloud, Minnesota, which raised over $6,000 for Big Brothers-Big Sisters; and the sponsoring of youth hockey by Council 3166 in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. Mr. President, I am pleased to report that the ``World's Largest Catholic Family Fraternal Organization'' has a commanding presence in Minnesota and will continue to provide communities with an excellent example of how to live a fulfilling life of maximum service to God and country. I am honored to have this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the Knights of Columbus for all their work, and offer my sincerest congratulations on the 116th anniversary of their founding.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few minutes about the violent storms of this past weekend in south-central Minnesota and to express my concern for the many, many victims of this tragedy. Tornados and severe thunderstorms ripped through Minnesota Sunday evening, tearing through St. Peter, Hanska, and Lonsdale and forcing the evacuation of the small town of Comfrey. In the wake of the devastation, my thoughts and prayers go out to the people of south-central Minnesota. I would especially like to express my condolences to the families of Dustin Schneider, the young boy whose life was taken by the storm near St. Peter, and Louis Mosenden of Hanska, who died Monday as a result of injuries he suffered when a tornado hit his home. Our thoughts and prayers are with their loves ones. Mr. President, along a 60-mile path, hundreds of houses, factories, barns, silos, churches, and schools have been reduced to rubble. Most of the buildings in St. Peter were either destroyed or severely damaged. The smaller community of Comfrey was almost completely destroyed. Power is still out in both towns. In all, more than 700 houses and apartments were destroyed or damaged to the point that they are now uninhabitable. Another 1,800 have sustained severe damage. Thousands of residents have been forced to go seek public shelters or the homes of friends or relatives. More than 100 businesses have been damaged in the area. Even with the massive damage, the initial response to this disaster by the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota National Guard, Minnesota relief agencies, and local law enforcement has been swift and efficient. Because of this quick response, and the cooperation we are seeing between state, local, and federal officials, I am confident south-central Minnesota will recover from this natural disaster. I intend to survey the area this weekend, after state and local officials have completed their damage assessments. My staff is already on the scene, and is meeting today with representatives of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in St. Peter as they inspect the damage. Since first receiving word of the storms, I have been working closely with state and local officials to bring federal assistance to the region and begin the recovery efforts. I want to assure my constituents that the federal government will do whatever is needed to help the people of our state cope with the devastation. Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson today forwarded to President Clinton his formal request for a disaster declaration, and I have written to the President as well to reiterate the urgency of Governor Carlson's request. Mr. President, the people of Minnesota have faced disaster before. It was almost one year ago when the terrible spring floods swept through western Minnesota and devastated so many lives. We learned a lot about each other during the difficult months that followed, when it seemed the clean-up would never end and life would never be the same again. We were reminded what it means to be a community, and how communities come together during troubled times. With that experience fresh in mind, I know that Minnesotans will once step forward and help one another rebuild from this weekend's tornados. And I want the victims of this latest disaster to know that they will not be forgotten.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I just rise for a few moments this afternoon to pay tribute to the University of Minnesota basketball team--the Golden Gophers of Minnesota. Just a little over a year ago I stood here on the Senate floor saluting the Minnesota Gophers basketball team for their accomplishment of winning the Big Ten championship. That was the team that eventually went on to the NCAA Final Four. Mr. President, I want to take time to salute an equally deserving team--and that is the 1998 NIT champions, the Minnesota Golden Gophers, who defeated the Penn State Nittany Lions last night by a score of 79- 72. Now, this team overcame the loss of many key players from last year's Final Four squad, but the leadership from seniors Sam Jacobson and Eric Harris, and the excellent play from Kevin Clark and Quincy Lewis helped the Gophers improve from their slow start this season to finish the year by winning eight of their last nine games. Every member on the team contributed to the success of this Gopher team, leading to the Gophers' sixth consecutive 20-win season. Mr. President, Coach Clem Haskins received many coach-of-the-year awards last year. But I must say, the job he did this year is equally impressive and truly deserves recognition today. So, again, Mr. President, I rise to salute the 1997-1998 NIT champions, the Golden Gophers of the University of Minnesota. Thank you very much. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Also, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 3 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I also rise today to support this amendment. The United States has been called a ``deadbeat''; it has been called a ``bully'' at the United Nations. The United States has been accused of being ``heavy-handed'' and not doing its ``fair share'' for the international community. The United States has been berated and belittled at every turn by many of the countries that have been benefiting most from U.S. generosity--both in terms of security guarantees and also in terms of economic assistance. Mr. President, America bashing is a popular pastime at the United Nations, and this administration is doing nothing to stop it. In fact, this administration has been contributing to the feeding frenzy by trying to undercut the terms of the U.N. reform plan instead of standing by the deal that it helped negotiate. If this administration is encouraging anti-American sentiment at the United Nations in order to gain leverage with Congress to water down the reforms, well, it is unconscionable and it is not going to work. Mr. President, this administration has been so weak in defending the honor and the reputation of the United States at the United Nations, and so negligent in highlighting the great contributions that America is making to promote international security, that we feel compelled to direct the administration to do so with this amendment. Now, while the United States is being called a ``deadbeat'' regarding its international obligations, well, the facts say something quite different. The United States may owe arrears to the United Nations, but that is only because the United States received no credit at the United Nations for the $2.97 billion that U.S. taxpayers spent in fiscal year 1997 implementing U.N. Security Council resolutions--again, nearly $3 billion of U.S. taxpayer money to help implement U.N. Security Council resolutions last year alone. We received no credit for the more than $6.4 billion that the U.S. taxpayers have spent to date in and around Bosnia. We will receive no credit for the emergency funding of an additional $487 million for the Bosnia mission and the $1.4 billion for U.S. deployments in the Persian Gulf that the President is asking for in this bill. As we all know, our troops are in the gulf to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 on Iraq. But that does not mean that we will get credit for our contribution at the United Nations. And while we do need to settle our disputed arrears to the United Nations, Mr. President, we should not be myopic. The U.S. taxpayers are doing far more than just pulling their weight in the international community. Mr. President, this amendment is necessary to ensure that all U.N. member states are aware of the great sacrifices that the American taxpayers are making to support U.N. Security Council resolutions since U.N. bookkeeping obscures the facts. First, the amendment states that U.S. taxpayers should be commended for their generous support in maintaining international peace and security; the United Nations should publicly acknowledge this support and immediately reduce the U.S. peacekeeping assessment to 25 percent that is in accordance with U.S. law. Second, it calls on the President to direct the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to introduce a Security Council resolution requiring the Security Council to report to all member states on the amount that the United States has spent supporting U.N. Security Council resolutions just since January 1, 1990, as determined by the Department of Defense. Third, it requests the Secretary of State to notify all members of the Security Council on the amounts--both credited and uncredited--that DOD has spent supporting U.N. Security Council resolutions, again, just since January 1, 1990. And, fourth, Mr. President, it requires the President to report back to the appropriate committees in the House and the Senate within 45 days on the efforts to carry out these steps in this amendment. Now, I do not know how far this amendment will go toward getting the U.S. taxpayers the recognition that they deserve for U.S. support of the United Nations, but I do hope it will put the U.S. arrears in perspective. Both the administration and the Congress agree that the U.S. owes only $54 million to the U.N. regular budget and $658 million for peacekeeping expenses. Now, that is $712 million. You compare that to the nearly $3 billion the Department of Defense spent in fiscal year 1997 alone--we spent more than four times that amount last year alone-- implementing U.N. Security Council resolutions. Mr. President, throughout the history of the United Nations, the United States has always been its most generous donor. American taxpayers currently are billed for 25 percent of the entire U.N. operating budget and 30.4 percent of the peacekeeping budget, although the United States now pays 25 percent, as I mentioned, in accordance with a law passed by, again, a Democratic-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. Currently, those bills total more than $600 million annually. In contrast, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and China--which has a veto in the Security Council--only pay about 1 percent of the entire U.N. regular budget. The floor of assessment levels was just lowered from .01 percent of the U.N. operating budget, from about $106,000 a year, to .001 percent, or under $11,000. So each contribution from those nations will not be enough to even cover one-tenth of the salary of one of their highly priced bureaucrats. It will only pay about one-tenth of the salary of one of their bureaucrats at the United Nations. That is all they pay. Despite this fact, each member of the United Nations has one vote on budget issues. In addition to the assessed payments I just mentioned, the United States voluntarily and generously contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to programs like UNICEF, UNHCR, and the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. So, Mr. President, the United States pays more than its fair share for world peace, stability, and humanitarian efforts. That being said, we do need to settle our disputed arrears to the United Nations. We did engage in good-faith negotiations with the administration, and we made a deal on the U.N. reform package. The Senate, with the full support of the administration, passed this bipartisan legislation twice--by a 90-5 rollcall vote and again by unanimous consent. The only thing that prevented this agreement from becoming law was a dispute over an unrelated issue. This administration then decided to forgo nearly $1 billion for the United Nations and $3.5 billion for the IMF so it could preserve the ability for U.S. grant recipients to lobby foreign governments to liberalize their abortion laws. Mr. President, Secretary Albright recently said that failure to pay the U.N. arrears would result in a ``shutdown of our national security policy.'' I must admit, I was somewhat taken aback by that statement, as I was not aware that this administration had officially subcontracted our national security policy to the United Nations. Indeed, I will fight to make sure that it will never happen. But if the United States truly is suffering a loss of prestige and effectiveness in the global arena because of our U.N. arrears, as the administration contends, then it is irresponsible for this administration to jeopardize our security interests and influence for domestic political considerations. I hope that in the near future Congress will pass the U.N. reform package and the President will sign it into law so we can put this small matter of the disputed arrears behind us. Regardless of the fate of that legislation, I also believe it is important that we pass this amendment so that the rest of the world will be aware of what we all know, and that is the huge sacrifice that the United States taxpayers make to support U.N. Security Council activities. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I rise to briefly state my strong support for the $3.5 billion in NAB, the new arrangements to borrow, and also the additional $14.5 billion in replenishment. The conditions attached to this amendment, I believe, are a good compromise based on the Hagel-Gramm-Roberts bill that was introduced last week, which will make the IMF, I believe, work better in the future than it has worked up to now. It is my hope there can be further improvements also in conference. I thank the majority leader Senator Lott for his strong leadership and support and also the hard work that Senator Hagel and Senator Roberts, also Senator McConnell and Senator Phil Gramm, Senator Mack of Florida and also Senator Craig, among others, who have worked very hard to reach this compromise over the last few days. I really believe the IMF is too important at this time not to replenish, not to continue to show strong American leadership in this area. The financial crisis of other nations can no longer exist in a vacuum. They affect every other nation as we move closer to a global economy. I encourage the support of my colleagues for this very important amendment. I thank you very much, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, what is the current order of business before the Senate?

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. If I could speak for 5 minutes in support of the amendment following the Senator from Maine.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Arizona today to offer this amendment striking some add- on, non-emergency items from the supplemental appropriations. This amendment represents sound and responsible fiscal policy. I want to take this opportunity to commend Senator McCain for his consistent leadership and persistent efforts to ensure Congress exercises fiscal responsibility. Supplemental appropriations legislation has routinely become a Christmas tree. Every year it is loaded with all kinds of unauthorized, non-emergency projects, stuck here and there, until it reaches the point where it has grown out of control. Supplemental appropriations, by definition, are supposed to be enacted when the need for additional funds is too urgent to be postponed until the next regular appropriation is considered. Today, this legislation has become a major vehicle for lawmakers to bring home the bacon. In fact, not one of the items listed in this amendment is too urgent to wait for consideration under the proper procedures. Many of us come down to the floor each year demanding this irresponsible practice come to an end. Unfortunately, it has been a fight to persuade Congress that this is the only sensible course lately. Taxpayer dollars are too often considered ``free money'' here in Washington, and the thought of more ``free money'' is creating a feeding frenzy on Capitol Hill, particularly when there might be ``budget surplus'' in sight. As I've said before in this Chamber, the rush to spend reminds me of the free-for-all that results when you toss a piece of raw meat to a pack of hungry dogs. Washington will pounce on a stack of tax dollars and spend, spend, spend until it's all gone--until the bones have been stripped of every last morsel of meat. This is nothing new, of course. But just because it has become habit on Capital Hill doesn't mean it's right. The greatest concern I have about these add-on, non-emergency items and the supplemental appropriations bill is that this spending will consume a possible budget surplus that should rightfully be returned to the taxpayers in the form of tax relief, national debt reduction, or Social Security reform. The President is maintaining that not one penny of a potential surplus would be used for spending increases or tax cuts, and every penny should go to save Social Security. But in his fiscal year 1999 budget, he has already proposed to spend some $43 billion of the surplus. Now the President has proposed a supplemental appropriation that will spend another $2.5 billion of this surplus. I believe strongly that Congress owes it to the taxpayers not to spend any surplus for government programs. After all, the Government has no claim on any surplus, because the Government didn't generate it--the sweat and hard work of the American people created it, and it therefore should be returned to the people first. Washington should not be first in line for this surplus. If we are serious about saving Social Security, we should first stop looting the Social Security surplus by cutting government spending, returning the borrowed surplus to the trust funds, and beginning real reform now. Congress has done very little to shrink the size of the Government by eliminating wasteful and unnecessary Federal programs. It instead continues to increase the size of the Government. As I've said before, it this is a race to prove who can be the most ``compassionate'' with taxpayers' dollars, it's a race nobody will win, and one the taxpayers most certainly will lose. The truth is simple: You can't buy compassion. A big, expensive Federal Government is a bad deal for Americans. If Congress could roll back government domestic spending back to 1969 levels, a family of four would keep $9,000 a year more of its earnings than it does today. Millions of families would pay no income tax at all. Unfortunately, tax-and-spend--not tax relief and streamlining--is the policy Washington is now pursuing. Since the 1970's, Congress has passed a number of bills to make it difficult to use supplementals to bypass spending controls. But they don't appear to be working. In fact, Congress has provided $5 billion each year in emergency spending since the establishment of spending caps. All of the supplementals are offset. Breaching the spending caps would be fiscally irresponsible at a time in which domestic discretionary spending continues to grow and large numbers of wasteful programs are allowed to continue. Although our short-term fiscal condition has improved in recent years, we still have a long way to go to address our long-term fiscal imbalances which pose a serious threat to our future. We must exercise fiscal discipline to ensure the Federal budget will be balanced--and stay balanced--without new taxes and without new spending. In conclusion, there might be merits for some of these add-on, non- emergency programs. But they should undergo the normal authorizing process. Non-emergency add-ons destroy the purpose of supplemental appropriations and weaken our fiscal discipline. Again, supplemental appropriations, by definition, are supposed to be enacted when the need for additional funds is too urgent to be postponed until the next regular appropriation is considered. Again, today, this legislation has become a major vehicle for lawmakers to bring home the bacon, and, in fact, not one of the items listed in this amendment is too urgent to wait for consideration under proper procedures. So they should be stricken out of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as you know, the Senate has before it and is debating a very important bill to promote educational alternatives. It is a bill which advances educational options, one which would encourage families to be actively involved in their children's education. It comes at a critical time. Test results released last month show that American high school seniors score far below their peers from other countries in math and science. Education Secretary Riley called the scores ``unacceptable,'' and indicated that schools are failing to establish appropriate academic standards. S. 1133 is the Senate's version of the education-IRA which has already passed in the House. The bill, commonly referred to as the A+ savings accounts, would expand the college education savings accounts established in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to include primary and secondary students. A+ accounts would also increase the maximum allowable annual contribution from $500 to $2,000 per child. The money could be used without tax penalty to pay for a variety of education- related expenses for students in K-12, as well as college expenses. The Senate bill closely resembles what is currently happening at the state level in Minnesota. Our state is establishing itself as a leader in bringing educational opportunity, authority and choice to parents. Last summer, the Minnesota legislature approved Governor Carlson's two- year package of tax cuts valued at $160 million. The package includes a 250% increase in educational tax deductions. Parents can now deduct between $1,625 and $2,500 each year per child, depending on the child's grade. These deductions may be used for all education expenses, including tuition. Senate consideration of the A+ legislation comes at a notable time, a time of increasing focus on the future of America's children. Last October, the White House held a summit intended to bring children's issues into the forefront as a national priority. Well, what better way to turn consensus-building into action than to give parents practical tools, such as the A+ accounts, which enable them to better provide for their children's education. Unfortunately, tired, groundless attacks against the A+ accounts continue to hang on. The charge I hear most frequently is that ``education savings accounts and tax breaks for parents would shift tax dollars away from public schools.'' That is simply not the case. More education dollars under parental control would promote education by encouraging parents to save, invest in, and support programs and materials that facilitate and provide the right option for child's education. Nothing would be taken away from public education resources. The A+ accounts help working families. They encourage savings and enable families to make plans which shape a child's future. They are directed at low and middle income families, not wealthy families which currently have more education options. It seems ironic to me that some of the loudest opponents of these savings accounts are high-income, high-option individuals, who can afford to send their own children to private schools. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the great majority of families expected to take advantage of the education savings accounts have incomes of $75,000 or less. These are the families who need savings options and incentives the most. Mr. President, the A+ accounts simply provide a modest, tax-free savings plan for families. This is a common-sense approach to the serious issue of educating our children. It offers a real solution for America's working families, and I urge my colleagues to give it their support. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon just briefly to recognize National Agriculture Week. It is no secret that America's farmers are the most productive in the world, and it is so appropriate that we take a few moments to recognize their many, many contributions. Agriculture is traditionally viewed as small family farms producing for a regional market. Local grain elevators, shipping interests, processors, banks, and consumers are all vital components in meeting the demands of a continually changing domestic and world market. From the grocery store in Minneapolis to the rural implement dealer, each of us has an interest in ensuring a vibrant agricultural economy. But the foundation remains the individual producer. These are families who rise each morning and labor into the night to provide each of us the food we eat. These independent-minded individuals are heavy on common sense, and they are not predisposed to taking short cuts or pat answers. Without a doubt, some of the best advice I receive comes from the savvy business men and women who are commonly called ``farmers.'' I was raised on an old-fashioned dairy farm in rural Minnesota. I know firsthand the hard work and dedication that it takes to do a job that is often overlooked and unrecognized. However, a farmer's responsibility goes far beyond producing a crop or making sure that the cows are milked. To ensure continued productivity, he also must be an environmental steward of the land that he cultivates. In many cases, this leads to lower fertilizer inputs and enhanced wildlife habitat. Mr. President, the last few years have brought about some great changes in agriculture. The 1996 farm bill was a step, I believe, in the right direction, yet the job is not yet finished. If farmers are to produce for the marketplace, we must give them the tools they need to manage their operations. This includes addressing such issues as regulatory reform, risk- management options, and Federal crop insurance reforms. By providing farmers with the flexibility to manage their own businesses, we are ensuring a better future for everyone. In an effort to produce for changing markets, groups of farmers across Minnesota are exploring ways to enhance their income and productivity through value-added ventures and cooperative research agreements. It is this spirit of innovation that should be encouraged and not stifled by the heavy hand of Government. These farmers are the leaders of tomorrow who will ensure a safe and steady food supply for America and the world well into the next century. So in short, Mr. President, we owe all those involved in agriculture a debt of gratitude, and I am very proud to join my colleagues in recognizing the outstanding contributions of America's agricultural sector. With that, Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this morning along with my colleague to make a few brief observations about Social Security and how we can preserve and strengthen it. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for reserving floor time so that we can address this critical issue. I was shocked by a recent poll revealing that Americans would rather put their Social Security money under their mattress than entrust it to the Government. According to that poll, 46 to 56 percent of Americans said they would prefer to put their retirement savings under their mattress--only 28 to 35 percent would rely on Uncle Sam. Why are so many Americans skeptical about the government-run Social Security program? The answer is simple: in its present form, the program is a raw deal for most Americans. It will not be there for baby boomers, and it will heavily burden our children and grandchildren. Mr. President, the American people's skepticism and worries about Social Security are well founded. Social Security's future is being challenged by a massive demographic shift now underway that will continue for the next 33 years. In 1941, there were approximately 100 workers for every retiree. Today, there are only three workers for every retiree; that ratio will soon drop to two workers per retiree. Even though Congress has increased the payroll tax 51 times since Social Security's creation, the program is clearly headed for insolvency and the future tax burden on workers will be overwhelming. The Congressional Budget Office warns that if these problems are not fixed, federal deficits could shatter our future economy, placing a heavy burden on our children and grandchildren. The federal deficit would increase from $107 billion in 1996 to $11 trillion in 2035. The national debt would balloon to $91 trillion during that same period of time. Such rapid growth of federal debt and the deficit would bankrupt this nation, making any bailout impossible. Mr. President, I welcome the fact that the Administration has started to pay attention to the Social Security crisis. I am pleased we all agree that Social Security is facing serious financial and demographic challenges. It is a fiscal disaster-in-the-making, unsustainable in its present form. We desperately need reform to preserve and strengthen the Social Security program. The sooner we do it, the less pain we will suffer in the future. But the real question is, how we should go about it? It is obvious to me that simply funneling money back into Social Security won't help fix the problem. It will not re-build the fund's assets for current and future beneficiaries and it does not address the flaws of the current finance mechanism. The fundamental problem with the Social Security program is that it is funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. The Social Security payroll taxes are not directly invested in assets, and retirees' benefits are not paid from the sale of earlier invested assets. Instead, the current payroll taxes are largely paid directly to current retirees, and the federal government uses the remainder to fund other programs--stealing from the Social Security trust fund to pay for other programs. The Social Security's trust-fund ``assets'' consist of nothing but Treasury IOUs that can only be redeemed if Congress cuts other spending, raises taxes, or borrows from the public to raise the cash. Without fundamental reform, using general revenue to pay for Social Security is nothing but an increase in the payroll tax on American workers. I believe that reforming the Social Security program to ensure its solvency is vitally important, and the sooner we get about the task of doing it the better. Any projected budget surplus should be used partly for that purpose, using it to build real assets by changing it from pay-go to a pre-funded system. Yet, I also believe strongly that Congress owes it to the taxpayers to dedicate a good share of the surplus for tax relief. After all, the government has no claim on any surplus because the government did not generate it--it will have been borne of the sweat and hard work of the American people, and it therefore should be returned to the people in the form of tax relief. Washington and bureaucrats should not be first in line to take any of the surplus and spend it. It should go back to the taxpayers. Should we save Social Security first or provide tax cuts first? My answer is we should do both. We had a similar debate last year about whether we should balance the budget first and provide tax cuts later. The truth is we can absolutely do both at the same time, as long as we have the political will to reform Social Security. The President is maintaining that not one penny of the surplus should be used for spending increases or tax cuts--that every penny should go to save Social Security. But in his FY 1999 budget, he has already proposed to spend some $43 billion of the surplus. That's an obvious contradiction. Moreover, in the next five years, the President will have to use more than $400 billion out of $600 billion from the Social Security trust funds surplus to pay for his government programs. If we're serious about saving Social Security, we should first stop looting the Social Security surplus to fund general government programs, return the borrowed surplus to the trust funds by cutting government spending, and begin real Social Security reform. Mr. President, several other recent polls prove that Americans are increasingly concerned about the future solvency of the current Social Security program. A USA Weekend poll showed that one out of two Americans fear they would have inadequate Social Security benefits. In a survey conducted during a Social Security conference I hosted recently in my home state of Minnesota, we found that 73 percent of the participants fear they may not achieve a secure retirement from Social Security. Eighty-five percent believe America's young people will be facing a major financial crisis and significantly higher taxes because of current and future spending on older generations. Eighty percent believe most people could make more money investing their retirement funds in the private sector than they get from Social Security. Seventy-nine percent would support conversion of the current pay-go system to a prefunded system. Again, 79 percent, or 8 out of 10 Americans, would support the conversion of the current pay-go system to a prefunded system. Clearly, the American people want reforms to ensure that any retirement benefits continue to be available to all Americans. And I believe we should consider any Social Security reforms that will provide a better retirement safety net for all Americans by allowing compound interest to work. Mr. President, the success of Social Security reform depends on informing and educating the American people. Only a knowledgeable public can make a sound decision about how we should go about saving Social Security. As a first step in this effort, I have introduced a bill to require statements providing the American people with essential information on their future Social Security benefits. The information provided by the Social Security Information Act will give us a better idea of what our Social Security benefits will be at retirement age, as well as a comparison to what those retirees would get if Social Security dollars had been invested privately. They need to have that information. They need to have that comparison. Americans need to know up front what they can and can't expect of the Social Security System compared against what they are paying into it and what their employer is contributing. Giving individuals an honest accounting of that information serves, I think, the very fundamental objectives of the Social Security Program by enabling workers to judge to what degree they should supplement their contributions with other forms of retirement savings such as pension plans, personal savings, and investment. The Social Security Information Act is a good first step in the fundamental reform that needs to be undertaken. Mr. President, in closing, I am looking forward to working with my colleagues and the administration in exploring every possible solution that we can to strengthen Social Security and to help provide better benefits for today's recipients and also provide better benefits for future generations. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Wyoming, and I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Camp Fire Boys and Girls of America on the occasion of the 88th anniversary of its founding in March 1910. The Camp Fire Girls, now the Camp Fire Boys and Girls since being incorporated in 1978 to include boys' programs, was started in 1910 by Dr. and Mrs. Luther Halsey Gulick of Sebago, Maine. The Gulicks founded this nonprofit organization to encourage girls to reach beyond traditional limitations. Across the country, Camp Fire was integral in developing America's view of children as an investment in the future of our nation. Within two short years, the new organization of Camp Fire Girls, Inc. was organized in 42 states, one of which was my home state of Minnesota. Camp Fire clubs grew quickly in Minnesota, making headlines when girls marched off to camp at Square Lake near Stillwater. With groups consisting primarily of high school and university students, nearly 400 girls were involved in Minneapolis Camp Fire. A 1912 article in the Ladies Home Journal inspired a group of girls from St. Paul to start their own chapter. Dr. F.S. Cone, pastor of the St. Anthony Park Methodist Church, agreed to sponsor this group of eight girls and their 21-year-old leader. Currently serving approximately 670,000 participants annually, 45 percent of whom are male, Camp Fire Boys and Girls is organized in 42 states and the District of Columbia. In 1997, the Minnesota Lakes Council alone served 10,865 youth, aiming to provide them with the necessary tools to live their lives productively in an ever-changing environment. The Camp Fire Boys and Girls is centered on three concepts: Work, Health and Love (WOHELO). The organization's objective is to provide opportunities for youth to realize their potential as caring, responsible and self-directed individuals. This objective is achieved by providing three main categories of youth development programs: club programs, outdoor programs and Self Reliance programs. Through these efforts, the Camp Fire Boys and Girls offer a variety of courses to provide youth with an opportunity to build their self-esteem, develop leadership skills, practice cooperation and conflict resolution skills and provide service to their community. None of this would be possible were it not for the adult volunteers who are the foundation of the Camp Fire Boys and Girls. Currently there are more than 571 men and women in Minnesota who, in the spirit of Dr. and Mrs. Gulick, invest their time and talents to ensure that our youth are prepared for the challenges of tomorrow. Adult volunteers touch the lives of young people by serving as excellent role models and teachers, as well as caring friends. Mr. President, for 88 years the Camp Fire Boys and Girls of America has been teaching our youth the skills they need to become effective leaders and responsible citizens. This is truly grounds for celebration.