Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the debate relative to the nomination of Frederica Massiah-Jackson be postponed to occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader. It is my understanding that the White House intends to withdraw this nomination by 1 p.m. today. If that does not occur, then it would be the majority leader's intention to begin the scheduled debate at 1 p.m.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be permitted to meet on March 16, 1998, at 1 p.m. for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. GRAMS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. on the occasion of the 86th anniversary of its founding. The Girl Scouts have come a long way since founder Juliette Gordon Low made a phone call to her cousin in 1912, proclaiming that she had something for all the girls of Savannah, Georgia, and all the girls of America. The phone call led to the gathering of 18 girls in Juliette's backyard to study nature and learn to play basketball. This was the start of the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. The Girl Scouts spread quickly across the United States, reaching my home state of Minnesota in July 1918, only six short years after its inception. Since then, the Girl Scouts have evolved into the largest voluntary organization for girls in the world. The Girl Scouts membership nationwide consists of over 2.5 million girls between the ages of five and seventeen and more than 800,000 volunteers who give their time and talents to ensure these young women are instilled with the knowledge that they can do anything they set their minds to. As for Minnesota, there are approximately 61,000 girls and 19,000 volunteers associated with the Girl Scouts. The Girl Scouts of the U.S.A joins a worldwide family of 9 million girls and adults in 136 countries as a member of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts. The Girl Scouts offer, for girls of every background, activities that enhance the development of confidence, determination, and the skills needed to succeed in today's world. One activity rich in Girl Scout tradition is the selling of Girl Scout cookies. This tradition, which began in Philadelphia, has been around since 1934. Many successful businesswomen today say they got their start selling Girl Scout cookies. Girl Scouts develop many skills during the annual cookie sales, such as establishing goals, handling money, and the satisfaction of finishing a job. By cooperating with peers to achieve a common end, Girl Scouts learn valuable lessons in leadership. Countless civic, professional, and community leaders throughout our nation were involved in the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. Six of my Senate colleagues here in the 105th Congress--Barbara Mikulski, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Carol Moseley-Braun, Patty Murray, Susan Collins, and Mary Landrieu--were all Girl Scouts. Mr. President, for eighty-six years the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. have instilled in American youth the qualities of the Girl Scout Law and Promise, which focus on serving God and country, helping people at all times, being honest and fair, friendly and helpful, considerate and caring, courageous and strong, responsible and respectful, and making the world a better place. These are truly honorable qualities to live by and I am proud to pay tribute to the young women who honor them daily and the volunteers who make the Girl Scout program a reality.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, may I inquire on the time remaining?

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

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senate resolution 187. That is the resolution sponsored by Senator Mack directing the administration to pursue a resolution criticizing China's--only China's--human rights record at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. As you may know, I earlier objected to an attempt to UC this resolution on the floor, without benefit of committee consideration. I understand that many Senators do not believe a resolution is controversial, but, when it comes to China, I do believe it can be controversial--very controversial. You should too, because quite clearly China legislation, whether it be resolutions or sanctions, is, simply stated, I believe, to be counterproductive. Yesterday, this resolution was considered in a business meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee. At that time I offered an amendment which would expand the resolution to include other countries listed in the State Department's annual human rights report. In my judgment, it is incredible that we would pick just one country to criticize when there are even more egregious offenders out there. I did not object to having China on that list. We can put China at the head of the list, in the middle of the list, or at the bottom of the list. It should be on the list, but I do not think it should be on a list of only one country, and that is just China when, again, the State Department report on human rights violations has a long list of other countries. And if we are serious about looking at human rights violations around the world, we should also call those into question. My problem with this resolution is, again, that it is one of many, many legislative attempts, I believe, to just single out China. They are clearly counterproductive, in my judgment. China certainly does--it does have to make more progress on human rights, but it also has made significant progress as well. I also supported an amendment in our business committee yesterday in the Foreign Relations Committee by Senator Feinstein that would have balanced this resolution with language citing some of the improvements that were listed in the Human Rights Report. The right thing to do--and I repeat, the right thing to do--is oppose these kinds of public attacks and join me in efforts to pursue human rights violations in China through quiet diplomacy--through personal visits, including those I have had with President Jiang. These high- level contacts between the United States and Chinese officials, I believe, can be far more productive. Yesterday, a comment was made that we have to make this kind of public statement to the whole world to better focus attention on human rights concerns. I believe we do have maybe a responsibility to hold these human rights violations up for world scrutiny. But, again, shouldn't they include all countries that are guilty of human rights violations? Why do we think that standing up and publicly criticising China, and only China, following repeated efforts in the past, does any good? Do our words effect changes? No--I believe our efforts to build relationships with the Chinese, to talk to them privately about the need to improve and to see that changes are in their best interest are what make a difference. Resolutions make strong statements but I believe they do not accomplish the goals that we intend. China has become the whipping boy. A continued strong relationship with China will in fact enable us to have a much stronger impact on their reforms than any strong-arm tactics. I agree such tactics can get the world's attention, but do they actually help those who are in prison or face other forms of repression inside China? There is a growing middle class in China. As they are more exposed to the West through our products and our people, the Chinese people themselves are going to be placing more demands on their leaders for change. And that is already happening. The growing middle class in China, with their exposure to the West, is putting more demands on the Chinese leaders for change than we will ever accomplish from outside of their borders with these types of resolutions. My State has also been long involved in various people to people programs with China, programs which have pursued better relationships between our countries. We value those relationships. They have helped us improve relations with China, and they have helped China achieve the progress it has made economically and politically. I believe threats and censure may only close the door on our relationship with China. And if that happens we will then lose any opportunity that we will have to effect change. If we are not there, if we are not involved, if we do not have relationships with China, and if they in fact close the door to us, then what kind of an effect or influence are we going to have on change inside of China? I think it is a lot easier to change their mind if we are there than if we are not. As I said previously, it is the volume of efforts--the legislation, the resolutions and the sanctions--and constant criticism that has been the focus of my opposition. Many believe they can change China through public humiliation. Each new effort to bash China makes it more difficult, I believe, for our Government to formally address concerns of human rights and religious persecution. My point here is just to try to educate America, the Senate, Christians and all people who are concerned about human rights and religious freedom that this is not a ``free vote''; it is something we should think about before we vote for it, because, in my view, again, just singling out China is very counterproductive. Mr. President, now I want to get back to the language of this amendment itself--since I have been criticizing China resolutions generally. The wording of this resolution is even more disturbing. I am told the purpose, again, is to force the administration to introduce and to pursue a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission condemning China for human rights violations. However, what you are not told is that there is no support for this resolution at all. The European Union has even passed its own resolution indicating human rights violations are better addressed bilaterally with China. Again, the EU has already passed its own resolution indicating that human rights violations are better addressed bilaterally with China, not in this venue. Nearly all of our fellow U.N. members feel the same. So how do we expect the administration to go to the U.N. Human Rights Commission and garner support for this resolution? They would have the same result whether they pursued one now or 6 months ago. This has been tried before with no success. What leverage do we have to do this? We couldn't even get our U.N. allies, except one, to support us on Iraq. We still haven't settled the arrears question. How much weight will an attempt to pass a U.N. resolution--with no support--have in our quest to improve human rights in China? I believe none. A resolution supported by one country does not send a strong message. What it does is send the message that all other countries support what China is doing on human rights in China and that they need make no further progress because of that. I also have heard the administration has not yet determined whether it should pursue a resolution even though they know they will fail if they do so. If they agree to pursue one, they do it knowing that it is going to fail. If I were one of our allies, I would be sitting back and watching this and I would relish U.S. efforts to publicly condemn and sanction China, thereby impeding U.S. efforts to improve relations with China. That will give them many more opportunities to gain a firm foothold in what will be enormous trade and investment opportunities. If the U.S. gains the reputation of being an unreliable supplier, well, so much the better for them. They have seen us attempt to impose our laws and values extraterritorially on other countries over and over again. This has all accomplished nothing for us and much for them. For example, Airbus recently won a lucrative contract with China when China has long exhibited a preference for Boeing planes. It was a strong message from China and its relationship with the United States. This resolution, following all of the other attempts to rein in China, will not allow us to improve our relationship with China, but I believe it will slow that process. This will harm us in the eyes of the world community, it will impact US jobs, it will raise concerns about the U.S. security and leadership role in East Asia and the Pacific, and, most importantly, I believe that it is going to hurt the Chinese people themselves that we are trying to help. It will get us nothing-- no progress on human rights, no progress on religious persecution-- nothing at all. Many have said it is American involvement inside of China, including American investments, that have helped to improve the lives of many Chinese people and helped to foster more interest in human rights progress. More pressure for improvement comes from the inside out rather than the outside in. The Chinese government will listen more to the Chinese people than it will to threats from outside its borders. Let us look at the issue of religious persecution, since I know there is still legislation percolating on that issue as well. Religious leaders, including one from my own State, Reverend Don Argue, president of the National Association of Evangelicals and former president of North Central College in Minneapolis, just returned from a visit with President Jiang himself. Now, President Jiang invited them to China-- the first time that has ever happened. The leaders noted that with their visit with the President of China, they gained valuable access that they feel will help to open the door to better contacts with the Chinese leadership on religious issues. They felt President Jiang heard their message, and they believe that President Jiang does realize that religious persecution is a major stumbling block to improve Chinese- United States relations, as well as a stumbling block to the lives of its citizens. I have also addressed this issue in my visits to China, and I have visited churches there, as well. China does need to make more progress; there is no doubt about it. But Ned Graham, the son of the Reverend Billy Graham, and others tell me they have been working in China now for many, many years, and there has been progress, they tell me, and they are working quietly and effectively, quietly and effectively inside China to further that progress. These religious leaders need to assure China that their goals are to provide religious freedom, not to violate Chinese laws by pursuing separate political goals. That process, Mr. President, is ongoing and it is working. Mr. President, I realize that this resolution has broad support. However, I feel it was important to come to the floor to remind my colleagues that we should think about what we are doing because it is clearly, again in my view, not productive but, in fact, could be counterproductive. Further, if we pass a resolution at all, at the very least it should include many of the countries listed in the human rights report as well as China, not just one. Again I say, China needs to make improvements in the areas of human rights and religious persecution. It should be on the list that we condemn and hold up for the rest of the world to see. It could be first on the list, it could be last on the list, but it should be on the list. Again, it shouldn't be the only country on the list. I'm concerned about human rights in all countries, not just one. My substitute resolution would have just enabled us to go on record supporting human rights in many countries. It could have been a separate list, it could have included China, China could have been alone. But only to have one resolution on the floor today condemning one country, I think is going to do more harm for the people inside of China than it is going to do good. That was my main concern. I yield the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today on the 118th Anniversary of the founding of the Salvation Army in the United States to pay tribute to its valiant tradition of public service. In March of 1880, George Scott Railton left his native England and set sail for New York on a mission to further the work of the Salvation Army. On March 10 of that year, Railton arrived in New York where he began spreading the Salvation Army's mission in the United States, working in the spirit of service that has been inherent in the Salvation Army since its founding. Although the passage of time has brought with it new challenges, I am happy to say that today, the Salvation Army's presence in the United States is as strong as ever. Whenever there is a human need to be met, the Salvation Army responds to the call, providing comfort in the face of tragedy and hope in situations where there is seemingly no hope to be found. In its earliest days, the focus of the Salvation Army's work was attending to the material, emotional, and spiritual needs of the poor by providing shelter for the homeless, food for the hungry, and alcohol rehabilitation for the chemically dependant. Today the Salvation Army's mission is the same, yet the number of services offered has greatly increased. The Salvation Army has indeed adapted to changing times, as seen by the fact that it now offers services such as shelters for battered women, assistance to victims of HIV/AIDS, career counseling, vocational training, day care centers, correctional services, and drug rehabilitation. Mr. President, I would like to make special mention of one service the Salvation Army provides which has particularly touched my home state of Minnesota: disaster relief. Minnesotans witnessed that service first hand when the Salvation Army responded to the tragedy which struck in the form of the spring floods of 1997. In Operation ``We Care'', the Salvation Army provided a great deal of comfort and support to Minnesotans who had the misfortune of experiencing the devastation caused by the floods. Thousands were displaced by the floods, their homes destroyed, and necessities such as food, shelter and fresh water were made inaccessible by the flood's fury. In this trying time, the Salvation Army was on hand to give victims hot meals and a roof over their heads, as well as clothing, personal hygiene items, and a variety of other basic commodities that are often taken for granted yet are sorely missed when unavailable. Once the flood waters retreated, victims were faced with a new set of problems brought by the flood's aftermath. Victims returned to their homes and businesses to discover the extensive damage left in the flood's wake. Although the task of sandbagging and containing the river was over, the Salvation Army remained in the flooded areas to aid in the clean-up and rebuilding process. The Salvation Army contributed to this effort by providing clean-up kits, water pumps, wet vacs, emergency generators, and the tireless labor of dedicated volunteers. Operation ``We Care'' proved an effective and heartfelt response to this crisis. Through the generosity of the Salvation Army's employees and its many volunteers, Minnesotans were aided by everything from direct assistance to help pay rent, utilities, and other living expenses, to a prayer chain which called on people of all faiths to pray for those devastated by the floods. Mr. President, on behalf of the citizens of Minnesota, I would like to express my deep gratitude for the work the Salvation Army has undertaken in my state and send my sincerest congratulations on its 188th anniversary in this country. With its dedication to service and spiritual growth, the Salvation Army truly embodies the good in humanity.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also thank Chairman D'Amato for working with Senator Allard and myself in recognizing that growing mass transit moneys should be more fairly and equitably distributed to the new systems in our country, including Minneapolis and St. Paul. I represent Minnesota, a State that is growing, and growing in areas where rising populations are basically dictating the needs to resolve traffic congestion through new-start mass transit options. I thank the chairman for his commitment to work with Senator Allard and me in the conference and again to make the Fixed Guideway Program more equitable to the new system. I thank the chairman for his acceptance of our fixed guideway language in this amendment and for his commitment to work with us to maintain this language in conference, because it is important that a greater portion of the new funding above the current levels, currently $760 million in 1997, go to these new systems. These are the systems, as we have noted, that are growing the most and growing fast. I also thank him for this agreement to work with us in conference to help us establish some very significant funding for new starts. I also thank Senator Allard for all his work with us on this as well. I thank the Chairman very much for his help and cooperation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague from Colorado in support of this amendment, the Mass Transit Capital Investment Grants and Loan Program of the ISTEA II bill. I am very pleased that dialogue has been going on recognizing the needs of the 11 core, or old, systems and also looking at the needs of the future of the 34 cities and others to come on line and how they are going to be able to receive the funding they are going to need to handle the mass transit needs they are facing today and in the very immediate future. So I am very glad to see at least the dialogue is going on to begin the process of changing the current formula to take into consideration and into account both the needs of the existing systems but also the growing needs of growing systems as well. So I commend both Chairman D'Amato and also Senator Allard for their work on this. In recent years, Minnesota has received, Mr. President, less than a 20 percent return on its gas tax contributions to mass transit, and many States have received even less. Through the Allard-Grams amendment, I seek to ensure that Minnesota gets a fair and equitable return on its gas tax contribution. Now, we do not have the ridership on mass transit because we do not have the mass transit. If we do not have the mass transit, we cannot move the number of people, we cannot get into the formula argument of how many--70 percent, et cetera--people move on these existing systems. So there has to be a formula to ensure an equitable return to make sure these cities, such as the Denver or the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, have the funds to be able to invest in their transit needs. Now, section 5309 is entirely funded by the gas tax, and it provides nearly half of our Nation's mass transit dollars. We intend to amend this program to provide an equitable and fair distribution of transit dollars to new systems. These are systems in areas where the rising population dictates the need to resolve traffic congestion through mass transit options. As the Senator from Colorado has indicated, the amendment consists of two program changes. First, we make a change in the Fixed Guideway Program, and second, an improvement in the New Starts Program. Now, unless the Senate bill is amended, the vast majority of section 5309 will go to existing transit systems only. If mass transit programs are to be effective, well, then, the funding needs to go to the cities in regions of our country that are the fastest growing and drastically need this transit funding. In 1997, fixed guideway systems were funded at the level of $760 million in modernization funds. This was distributed on the formula of 90 percent to the 11 ``old'' or ``statutory'' systems, and only 10 percent went to the 34 ``new'' systems. The committee title alters this somewhat, but most of the funding for fixed guideway funds will continue to go to the 11 statutory cities. Now, let me make one very important point. This amendment does not alter the current level of funding for the 11 old systems. It merely requires that of all the new funding above the current funding levels of $760 million for 1997 go to the new transit systems. These new systems include the 34 new systems that now receive funds and any additional systems that meet the threshold requirement of 7 years of revenue operation during the 1998 through the 2003 year period. Just let me list the 34 new systems that would receive increased moneys from this amendment. They include Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Seattle, Atlanta, San Diego, San Jose, Providence, Dayton, Tacoma, Wilmington, Trenton, Lawrence-Haverhill, Chattanooga, Baltimore, Minneapolis-St. Paul, St. Louis, Denver, Norfolk, Honolulu, Hartford, Madison, San Juan, Detroit, Dallas, Sacramento, Houston, Buffalo, Portland, Miami, Phoenix, Jacksonville, West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Tampa. Of course, this list will continue to grow as other cities come on board in the future years once they meet the existing threshold requirement of 7 years of revenue operation. By the year 2000, the Allard-Grams amendment would direct 24 percent of fixed guideway modernization funds to go to these new cities. Even under our amendment, the vast majority of funds would continue to go, again, to the 11 ``old'' systems. And that is still a very generous allocation of these resources. The New Starts set-aside for projects for new transit systems is defined as projects for completely new fixed guideway systems, or extensions to existing fixed guideway systems placed in revenue service for 15 years or less. The amendment would ensure that growth in the New Starts program is directed at assisting new transit systems. Also, another important point to make is that this amendment would not alter the process for selecting worthwhile projects. Both Congress and the Department of Transportation would continue to determine which projects have merit, and fund them accordingly. There are no earmarks or language that would direct the funds to our states. While there are additional monies that have been added to the new starts program, the Transportation Appropriations Committees would still need to decide which new start projects to fund and at what levels to fund these projects. Keep in mind that both the Fixed Guideway Modernization and New Starts program combined constitute less than one-third of the mass transit dollars. Even with the changes proposed by the amendment this small number of cities will continue to do very well when it comes to mass transit funding. Our amendment is a small step toward ensuring a minimum degree of equity to regions in our nation that now have the greatest growth. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the importance of the ISTEA II bill and thank the floor managers for their efforts to report out very comprehensive and difficult legislation that is vital to all our states. The Senate's ISTEA II bill represents the result of intense negotiations between Chairman Chafee, Senator Warner, and Senator Baucus, each of whom have represented three different legislative approaches to the reauthorization of ISTEA. I want to again thank them for the work they've done to bring this bill to the floor. The citizens of my home state of Minnesota strongly support a 6-year reauthorization bill funded at the highest levels we can. This must be one of our top priorities in this session, and I hope we can soon reach a time agreement to facilitate its passage. I know we have only considered a few of over 200 amendments, many of which are nongermane, to this bill. As we are all painfully aware, the short-term ISTEA reauthorization bill expires March 31, 1998. After May 1, states will be prohibited from obligating any federal highway or transit funds at all. Although the money has been appropriated, it cannot be spent. This makes it especially difficult for a cold-weather state such as Minnesota to fund construction projects for the summer and fall construction seasons. That is why we must pass a 6-year reauthorization bill, rather than merely extending it for another 6 months. Again, on behalf of Minnesota constituents, I ask my colleagues to allow this bill to proceed rapidly. I am pleased that an agreement was reached on transportation spending in order to move this bill forward. I'm glad that we will now be able to spend the 4.3 cents per gallon federal gas tax that was moved from the general budget to the Highway Trust Fund in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I was pleased to be a supporter of the effort to use the 4.3 cents for its intended purpose of fulfilling our nation's transportation infrastructure needs and obligations. This will mean that federal highway spending will be increased by some $26 billion over the next few years. With these extra funds, the bill's authorizations for roads and bridges jumps from $145 billion to about $173 billion. We will now be able to guarantee states at least a 91 percent return on their gas tax payments to Washington. For Minnesota, this additional spending will result in an average increase of $47 million per year. The bill would also increase Minnesota's average share by over $129 million per year above the 1991 authorization. But most importantly, I want to commend Chairman Domenici for his commitment to find real offsets to this new spending so we do not break the spending caps in the 1998 balanced budget agreement. Mr. President, while I was pleased with the spending agreement, I am concerned about the additional spending for new programs that was negotiated as part of this agreement. As one who has supported an amendment in the past to reduce the level of funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission, and require that the Commission provide a specific plan for future downsizing, I am particularly concerned about the extra $1.89 billion for the Appalachian highway system. I was disappointed that some Senators would seek to add earmarks for their own states, when all states would benefit from the additional funding. The earmarks have increased the total funding amount--and expected and necessary offsets will undoubtably hurt other states such as mine in unrelated areas, including possible tax increases. Mr. President, the short-term extension of ISTEA is approaching its expiration. We need to go forward and approve a new highway reauthorization bill that is fair to states and consistent with our five-year balanced budget agreement as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of ``American Red Cross Month'' to pay tribute to one of the most exemplary humanitarian organizations the world has ever known, and to specifically recognize how the Red Cross touched the lives of thousands of Minnesotans during the 1997 spring floods. Each year, the Red Cross comes to the aid of victims of 66,000 disasters nationally. When disaster strikes, the Red Cross responds swiftly to the call to relieve human suffering and restore a sense of comfort and normalcy in the face of tragedy--a response honed over its 135 years of service. This surely was the case when tragedy hit Minnesota in the form of severe flooding in the spring of 1997. When the Minnesota and Red Rivers overflowed their banks, it brought forth a flood of destruction and human misery unseen in this normally peaceful part of the country. The Red Cross response to this catastrophe was swift and effective. With operations in three states--Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota--the Red Cross provided over 6,994 volunteers to aid in the flood relief effort. In addition, the Red Cross contributed direct assistance to approximately 11,867 families. In Red Cross service centers, victims were provided with basic necessities which were made scarce or unattainable due to the floods. The extensive damage to private homes displaced thousands, prompting the Red Cross to open 19 shelters which served 6,001 people. In all, the Red Cross served 1,179,950 meals at its 43 feeding sites and with its 64 mobile feeding units. The Red Cross was also able to provide fresh water, clothing, and blankets. After the water had returned within its banks and it was time for people to return to their homes to begin to clean up the residue left by the flood waters, the Red Cross provided 12,754 clean-up kits to aid in this long process. In a relatively short period of time, the river took away from some what it had taken a lifetime to build. In order to aid people in dealing with the mental strain brought by such a traumatic experience, the Red Cross made mental health professionals available, who attended to the needs of 15,498 individuals. During the many weeks of flood recovery work, there were two instances where individuals generously gave significant monetary contributions to the victims of the flood. These anonymous donors were properly referred to as ``Angels.'' While this label is indeed appropriate, it seems that it should also accurately be used to describe the thousands of Red Cross volunteers who came from all over this country and generously gave their time and labor to people known only to them by their need for assistance. Mr. President, while this was indeed a dark time for Minnesotans in the flood areas, the uncompromising compassion of Red Cross volunteers provided a bright display of kindness, a light that shone in the hearts of the many who so generously gave their time and labor in the face of this great tragedy. On behalf of the people of Minnesota, I wish to offer my sincerest thanks to the men and women of the Red Cross and commend this fine organization for its relief efforts throughout the world.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my hope that the agreement reached by Secretary Annan in Iraq results in the end of a conflict that has plagued the international community over the past seven years--the failure of Saddam Hussein to live up to the terms that he agreed to following the invasion of Kuwait and his defeat in the Gulf War. If Saddam has truly experienced a change of heart and has decided to abandon the production and concealment of weapons of mass destruction, this agreement is a milestone; if this is just one more ploy to evade the destruction of his arsenal, then we remain on course for a showdown with Iraq. We all know Saddam Hussein's record. He invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait. He used chemical weapons against Iran and against his own people. He used women and children as human shields to protect himself and his weapons of mass destruction. He is both a coward and a menace-- and that is a dangerous combination. At this time it is impossible to judge whether this deal will truly permit the UN weapons inspectors full and unfettered access. UNSCOM inspectors have always insisted that they need to be able to follow a trail wherever it leads them. They are not seeking access to a certain category of sites--they just need freedom to track the evidence. If this agreement permits them to do this and allows them to use whatever techniques are necessary, then the agreement is a step forward. The inspectors do not seal off buildings because they are ``cowboys,'' they do it because the Iraqi's were moving equipment out the back door as they entered the front. It would have been prudent for the Administration to have studied the plan, and clarified the details before it offered its support. But, as is the case with the lack of information to the Senate on the Administration's plan to bomb Iraq, prudence was apparently too much to expect. While I am reserving judgment on the Secretary General's agreement until the terms have been thoroughly explained, one positive immediate effect is that it has created a pause in the crisis. The Congress has a responsibility to the American people, and especially the men and women serving in our armed forces, to ensure that the Administration has clear objectives and a coherent policy in regard to Iraq. The use of air strikes against Iraq may have been averted in this instance, but given Saddam's track record of lies and deceit, I do not believe that this is the last time that we will be forced as a nation to confront him. We all witnessed the Administration's public relations offensive with Cabinet officials holding town hall meetings around the country to build public support for limited air strikes. Through these forums it has become painfully clear that the Administration refuses--or perhaps more disturbingly--cannot consistently answer four basic questions: (1) What are the Administration's goals; (2) how will limited air strikes achieve those objectives; (3) what happens after the bombing stops; and (4) what is our endgame? First the Administration told us that the goal of the United States was to allow UNSCOM inspectors full and unfettered access to suspected storage sites for chemical and biological weapons. Then we were told that it was to make sure that Saddam would not be able to ``reconstitute'' his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons production capabilities. But the Administration has failed to explain to the American people how air strikes will achieve these objectives. After a round of briefings in the Senate with Administration officials, the only thing that is clear is what US air strikes are not going to accomplish: they will not eliminate Iraq's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons; they will not eliminate Iraq's capability to produce weapons of mass destruction; and they will not remove Iraq's rulers, who persist on a course of action which threatens international security and the welfare of their own people. The Administration's plan for ``substantial'' air strikes--which I suppose falls somewhere between ``pinprick'' and ``massive'' attacks-- may delay Saddam's capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction. Of course, many of the buildings where biological weapons are produced and stored are dual-use facilities--like hospitals and vaccine laboratories. There is also a danger that uncontrolled explosions of storage facilities could result in the release of toxic substances. So it is not a question of whether we are able to destroy these targets, but whether the resulting deaths of Iraqi civilians would prove counterproductive to our goals. In addition, Saddam has been playing a shell-game with chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. As General Zinni, commander-in-chief of the US central command acknowledged in December, ``we do not have a good sense of what he has and where he has it''; and we do not know the location of mobile missile sites. Unfortunately, Saddam does not need a huge production capacity or weapons stockpile to remain a threat. As a February 15 article in London's Sunday Telegraph noted, recent investigations of a tiny leak of anthrax from a Soviet facility in 1979 have documented 77 deaths, with animals killed up to 30 miles away, even though less than a gram of anthrax escaped. Even if the Administration allows the military to conduct a comprehensive air campaign which cripples Saddam's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, it is highly unlikely that air strikes will result in UNSCOM inspectors being given unfettered access to suspect sites or will enhance our ability to contain Saddam. This brings us to the question of what happens after the bombing stops? The only proven way to effectively eliminate Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capacity is to have inspectors on the ground. As President Clinton remarked in an address last week to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, UNSCOM inspectors, have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War . . . [including] 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents. But 17 tons of biological growth agents, 600 tons of VX precursors and 4,000 tons of other chemical precursors remain unaccounted for. Iraq could have produced 200 tons of VX alone with this missing material. If, following the air strikes, Saddam denies permission for UNSCOM to conduct inspections, or if UNSCOM finds that it is not safe to proceed following the air strikes, then US actions will have jeopardized international security, not enhanced it. Furthermore, limited air strikes may extend rather than contain Saddam's power and influence in the region. We only have to look at the fact that the states most threatened by Saddam--the Arab nations in proximity to Iraq, with the exception of Kuwait--are not supporting US military action. Even Saudi Arabia, which we protected against invasion during the Gulf War, and our NATO ally Turkey have refused the use of air bases. The Arab nations are acting according to their own self-interest. They realize that Saddam is a threat to their national security, but they also recognize that limited US air strikes which fail to depose Saddam could leave them in an even more precarious position. The states neighboring Iraq have legitimate concerns that they could be destabilized if their populations rally around Saddam, who would be seen as a hero for standing up to the West. Saddam could gain further sympathy from those disaffected populations by opting out of the oil-for-food program. The entire sanctions regime could crumble, and Saddam could continue to increase his weapons program unfettered by multilateral sanctions. Efforts to promote democracy in the region would be jeopardized. Terrorism could be increased and exported to the United States. President Clinton asked a rhetorical question in his speech last week at the Pentagon: ``What if he (Saddam) fails to comply, and we fail to act?'' Well, I have a question for President Clinton, what if our air strikes only strengthen Saddam's power and eliminate any chance of finding and destroying his weapons of mass destruction? Administration officials have glibly answered that we will just bomb again. That is not a policy; that is not a strategy. It is a cop-out for poor planning and the lack of a comprehensive policy toward Iraq. How often can we bomb without mobilizing Muslim nations to stand by the people of Iraq? How often can we bomb without some form of retaliation from Iraq against our allies in the region, if not against the United States itself? This Administration talks in terms of limited strikes, but in war we must take into account the ``law of unintended consequences,'' and the threat of a regional conflict should not be dismissed. Which brings us to the subject of an endgame. When air strikes appeared imminent, I called Secretary General Kofi Annan and urged him to personally pursue a diplomatic solution. And I asked him at that time whether he had a message he would like to convey to the Senate. He responded that we should think through the endgame--what we will do after a military strike if we proceed to bomb Iraq. That is, I believe, sound advice. The Administration claims that it has a long-term strategy in Iraq--a strategy of containment. But I fail to see any connection between the Administration's short-term strategy of limited air strikes and its stated long-term goal of containing Saddam Hussein. As I said earlier, the best way to contain Saddam is to have weapons inspectors on the ground. Even when they are being impeded, their very presence makes it impossible for Saddam to engage in large-scale production of weapons of mass destruction. The Administration's proposed use of air strikes is therefore inconsistent with its stated long-term strategy of containment. Now, the Administration has stated that there are no good options for action against Iraq--and I agree. However, one of the reasons why there are no good options is the failure of this Administration to make an all-out effort over the past seven years to remove Saddam from power by establishing a power base for an alternative Iraqi government. Surely, this is an effort which could have secured allies in the region. According to news reports, by the end of 1996, both of the CIA's covert operations programs had been obliterated. One effort to recruit Iraqi officers, to try to provoke a military coup was apparently infiltrated by Iraqi double agents, and at least 100 officers were executed by Saddam for cooperating with Americans. Another effort to back the Iraqi National Congress in northern Iraq was abandoned by the US government and thousands were slaughtered when they mounted an offensive against Saddam Hussein. An article in the February 15 Los Angeles Times noted that the CIA team that was on the ground when the offensive started was recalled to the US when the acting Director of the CIA asked the FBI to conduct a criminal investigation as to whether five CIA officers involved in covert operations in Iraq were plotting to kill Saddam--charges, by the way, that were later dropped. Now this had a chilling effect on covert activity in Iraq, raising concerns as to whether this Administration is serious about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. I do not support Congressional efforts to overturn the Executive Order forbidding the assassination of foreign leaders. However, there is sufficient flexibility for covert operations to succeed in removing Saddam from power and those efforts must be promoted. As I stated before, I am pleased that Secretary General Annan succeeded in reaching an agreement with Saddam Hussein. Even if this agreement unravels, it has afforded Congress an opportunity to debate the Administration's policy toward Iraq. We must demand that the Administration come forward with a clear explanation of its strategy and tactics. We must condemn the Administration for refusing to give a codeword briefing to Senators on targeting strategy--only later did we read an outline of this strategy on the front page of The New York Times. As pressure to bomb Iraq was mounting, I remained convinced that further diplomatic efforts should be explored. There seemed to be a ``rush to bomb.'' As I said earlier, I called Secretary General Annan before the Administration agreed to his trip and asked him to go to Baghdad and speak to Saddam. I let Ambassador Richardson know that I would support a solution allowing representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council accompany UNSCOM inspectors, as long as UNSCOM was not impeded or compromised in any way. While I applaud the Secretary General's initiative, I have been appalled by the failure of the UN as an organization, and the Security Council in particular, to support enforcement of the UN resolutions. It is the greatest of ironies that this Administration is sending American men and women to risk their lives to uphold UN Resolution 687. This is a UN Security Council Resolution, but three out of the five permanent members oppose the use of force. France is more concerned with being able to sell Iraqi oil, China wants to buy the oil, and Russia seeks to be paid the $6 billion it is owed by Iraq. Only Britain is standing by the United States. There may come a time when the United States has to use force against Iraq to protect our national security. We cannot subcontract our national security policy to the United Nations. When, and if, that time comes, I hope that this Administration will let our armed forces do its job without one hand tied behind its back. And we should send a clear message to the ``Butcher of Baghdad'': If chemical or biological weapons are used anywhere in the world, and there is even the most tenuous link to Iraq, the full force of the United States will be used against him. Mr. President, in an excellent speech on the situation in Iraq, Senator Roberts of Kansas cited the words uttered 30 years ago by Senator Richard Russell, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee during the Vietnam War. I think that it is appropriate for me to once again repeat those words on the Senate floor. He said: I for one am not afraid of the old fashioned term, victory. We hear a great deal about limited wars, but I would point out that there is no such thing as a limit on actual combat in which our men our engaged. While it is a sound policy to have limited objectives, we should not expose our men to unnecessary hazards in pursuing them. And Senator Russell also made the following pledge: As for me, my fellow Americans, I shall never knowingly support a policy of sending even a single American boy overseas to risk his life in combat unless the entire civilian population and wealth of our country--all that we have and all that we are--is to bear a commensurate responsibility in giving him the fullest support and protection of which we are capable. It is inconsistent with our history, tradition and fundamental principles to commit American boys on far flung battlefields if we are to follow policies that deny them full support because we are afraid of increasing the risk of those who stay at home. It is a confession of moral weakness on the part of this country not to take any steps that are necessary to fully diminish the fighting power of our enemies.' Mr. President, I urge my colleagues and the Administration to hear those words--they have as much relevance today as when they were first uttered in this chamber. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to speak out of order for 20 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, throughout Minnesota's history, its residents have been considered among America's most civic-minded citizens, who are interested in public affairs and concerned about how government decision-making affects their daily lives. I have been well- served by the counsel of thousands of Minnesotans who have expressed concerns about high taxes, balancing the budget, and, most recently, U.S. military involvement in Iraq. During the 105th Congress, I have also heard from many Minnesotans who are concerned over the reports of alleged illegal or improper campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee and White House during the 1996 campaign cycle. These reports have raised the perception among some Americans that access and votes can be bought in Washington and that the system for financing our federal campaigns is corrupt and ``broken.'' As the Senate considers campaign finance reform legislation, I am not surprised that many constituents have contacted me about this issue-- but out of great concern for its potential impact upon their First Amendment right of free speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Regrettably, the consideration of the McCain-Feingold amendment is not the first time that Congress appears to have misinterpreted the will of the people. Mr. President, I recently received a letter from President Clinton concerning the McCain-Feingold legislation. In his letter, the President urged my support for this measure because it would ``make our democracy work better for all Americans.'' Many of my colleagues received a similar letter last fall from the President in which he encouraged Congress to work with him and ``restore the public trust'' by supporting the modified McCain-Feingold bill. As someone who has heard first-hand of the public's growing mistrust of their government, I strongly agree with the President's belief that the people's trust in their government should be restored and their participation in our democracy encouraged. However, I respectfully disagree with the President's recommended method for achieving these goals--through passage of new campaign finance laws. I believe the people's faith in our democracy can be restored through greater enforcement of our existing laws, rather than passage of new laws. Congress should also require frequent and fair disclosure of every contribution, and allow all Americans to participate in the political process. These measures, not new limits or government controls, will restore the public trust and allow Americans to participate in our democracy. Most importantly, Congress should ensure that one of our country's most fundamental freedoms, the right to speak freely and openly in our society, is preserved for future generations of Americans. I believe Congress should focus its attention on preserving the First Amendment, which has always been the basis for active citizen participation in our political process. The First Amendment ensures that, among other things, average Americans can participate in the democratic process through publicly disclosed contributions to campaigns of their choice. It also allows Americans to freely draft letters to the editor, distribute campaign literature, and participate in rallies and get-out-the-vote drives. Minnesota has a long history of its citizens becoming engaged in many of these activities during each election cycle. Mr. President, we had a lengthy and spirited debate last fall over the McCain-Feingold legislation, in which many of our colleagues on both sides of the issue participated. The Senate wisely voted to reject this attempt to direct attention away from the reports of alleged illegal or improper campaign contributions during the 1996 campaign cycle. In taking this action, the Senate sent a message to the electorate that it will work to preserve the rights of Americans to participate in the democratic process and restore the public's trust in their government. Despite this clear message sent by the Senate, and although many Americans continue to express opposition to ``reform'' efforts such as the McCain-Feingold bill, the President and some of my colleagues forced Congress, through various delaying tactics, to spend valuable legislative time revisiting this issue again this year. Mr. President, as I noted last year, proponents of the modified McCain-Feingold bill should be commended for excluding provisions intended to limit candidates spending, requirements for reduced broadcasting time, and the ban on political action committees. However, this measure continues to suppress the rights of Americans to communicate their ideas and express their views. Ultimately, it will control, rather than encourage, greater participation in the democratic process. And as a couple from Hastings, Minnesota recently wrote to me about the pending McCain-Feingold bill, ``It would be used as a tool to silence all criticism and disagreement by opponents of whatever government regime is in power in Washington at a particular time.'' First, the McCain-Feingold proposal continues to be premised upon the belief that there is too much money spent on American elections. If we accept this assumption, then Congress has decided to assert questionable authority to suppress the rights of Americans to become involved in the political process and make their voices heard. In fact, the belief that there is government justification for regulating the costs of political campaigns was rejected by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Buckley versus Valeo. Second, the McCain-Feingold proposal again includes a new and expanded statutory definition for ``express advocacy'' that would place additional restrictions on advocacy groups' political communications. As my colleagues know, the Supreme Court established in Buckley a ``bright line'' test for protected speech which stated that a political communication must expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate using such key words as ``vote for'' ``elect'' or ``vote against'' before it would be subject to federal regulation. Third, the McCain-Feingold amendment places new restrictions upon the ability of national parties to support state and local party activities. Rather than pursue a suspect expansion of government control of national parties, we should recognize that political parties enjoy the same rights as individuals to participate in the democratic process. For nearly two decades, political parties have been allowed to raise money for party-building and similar activities without limits on the size of contributions. Additionally, the Supreme Court decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, in which the Court found that Congress may not limit independent expenditures by political parties, makes it questionable whether these restrictions would be constitutional. Finally, the McCain-Feingold amendment does not adequately protect the right of Americans to participate in the democratic process without fear of coercion. Despite the Supreme Court decision in Communications Workers of America v. Beck almost ten years ago, millions of Americans still have portions of their paychecks taken and used for political purposes for which they may disagree, without their knowledge or consent. I believe forcing an individual to make compulsory campaign contributions is contrary to our constitutional form of government and the First Amendment freedoms we enjoy as citizens. For these reasons, I support the Majority Leader's decision to offer S. 1663, the ``Paycheck Protection Act,'' as the underlying bill. This will allow individuals to regain control of their paychecks, avoid coercion, and exercise their political freedoms. And unlike the Beck provision contained within the McCain-Feingold legislation, it would apply to all dues-paying employees. It would also reduce unnecessary burdens placed upon employees by requiring an employer to receive an individual's written permission before using his or her dues for political purposes. Mr. President, there has been some discussion that amendments may be offered to reach a compromise between those who support the McCain- Feingold legislation and others who support greater enforcement of our existing laws. While I believe compromise is an important part of legislating, I do not believe the Constitution should be compromised simply to give the public the impression that we are reacting to their concerns over allegations of campaign finance irregularities and illegal fundraising. I believe the American people deserve a full accounting and will receive a full accounting of allegations of campaign finance law violations in the 1996 campaign cycle. However, we should not forget that the public's mistrust of their elected officials has not grown from a lack of laws, but from the activities of those who may have broken our existing laws. Congress must not use violations of existing law to restrict political speech and participation by those who abide by current law. It is our responsibility to help safeguard the free speech rights of Americans and their ability to participate in the democracy which they have helped to create. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong disappointment as my colleagues waffle on our commitment to allow working Americans to keep a little more of their own money. I rise as well, Mr. President, to make the case for returning any potential budget surplus to the taxpayers. Mr. President, I was shocked to pick up the Washington Times on February 18 and find the headline ``Senate GOP leaders give up on tax cuts.'' Having been elected on a pledge to reduce taxes for the working families of my state, the idea that we would so quickly abandon a core principle of the Republican Party is a folly of considerable proportions, one I believe would abandon good public policy. In all the legislative dust that is kicked up in Washington, someone has to consider the impact of high taxes and spending, and speak up for the people who pay the bills: the taxpayers. When the Republican Conference met on February 11 to outline our budget priorities for the coming year, I joined many of my colleagues in stressing the need for continued tax relief. I did not leave the room with the belief that we had abandoned the taxpayers. Yet that is precisely what the Conference's ``Outline of Basic Principles and Objectives'' does, because under the Conference guidelines, tax relief for hard-working Americans would be nearly impossible to achieve. Mr. President, since its very beginnings in the 1850s, the Republican Party has dedicated itself to the pursuit of individual and states' rights and a restricted role of government in economic and social life. In 1856, the slogan of the new party was ``Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Man.'' It is still our firm belief that a person owns himself, his labor, and the fruit of his labor, and the right of individuals to achieve the best that is within themselves as long as they respect the rights of others. The fundamental goal of the Republican Party is to keep government from becoming too big, too intrusive, to keep it from growing too far out of control. We constantly strive to make it smaller, waste less, and deliver more, believing that the government cannot do everything for everyone; it cannot ensure ``social justice'' through the redistribution of private income. These two different approaches of governance are indeed a choice of two futures: A choice between small government and big government; a choice between fiscal discipline and irresponsibility; a choice between individual freedom and servitude; a choice between personal responsibility and dependency; a choice between the preservation of traditional American values versus the intervention of government into our family life; a choice of long-term economic prosperity and short- term benefits for special interest groups, at the expense of the insolvency of the nation. I think history has proven that whenever we have stuck to Republican principles, the people and the nation prosper, freedom and liberty flourish; whenever we abandon these principles for short-term political gains, it makes matters far worse for both our Party and our country. Here are two examples. Facing a $2 billion deficit and economic recession in 1932, the Hoover Administration approved a plan to drastically raise individual and corporate income taxes. Personal exemptions were sharply reduced and the maximum tax rate increased from 25 percent to 63 percent. The estate tax was doubled, and the gift tax was restored. Yet the federal revenue declined and the nation was deeply in recession. President Reagan took the opposite approach in 1981 when he enacted a 25 percent across-the-board tax, and again in 1986 when he signed a landmark piece of legislation to reduce the marginal tax rate to a simple, two-rate income tax system: 15 percent and 28 percent. What resulted was nothing short of an economic miracle. Our nation experienced the longest peacetime economic expansion in American history, the benefits of which we are still enjoying today. Over eight years, real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent and real median family income grew by $4,000, 20 million new jobs were created, unemployment sank to record lows, all classes of people did better, and in spite of lower rates, tax revenues increased dramatically. Mr. President, let us not forget the fact that the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994 because we were the champions of the taxpayers--the American people trusted us to carry out our promise when we said, ``Elect a Republican majority and we will work to let you keep more of the money you earned.'' The taxpayers elected us with the expectation that Republicans would seize every opportunity to lessen the tax burden on America's families. They certainly did not elect Republicans thinking we would be a collaborator of the President's tax-and-spend policies--that we wouldd build a bigger, more expensive government at the first chance we got and completely abandon our promise of tax relief for them. Is this the same Republican majority that arrived in Washington in January of 1995, ready to create fundamental change in a government that had enslaved so many working families for so many years? Is this the same Republican majority that promised the American people that there was no turning back to the era of big government and higher taxes? Is this the same Republican majority that I was so proud to be part of? It has been tremendously disappointing to me, and I believe the majority of taxpayers, to read the recent comments from those who have endorsed the President Clinton's ``save Social Security first'' gimmicks and are seeking to eliminate meaningful, achievable tax cuts from the next fiscal year's budget. As I said before on this floor, if we do not carry out the taxpayers' agenda, we may as well pack up our bags and go home, because we will have failed. And the price of that failure will fall on the backs of those we were elected to represent. I believe any retreat from that promise would be a terrible mistake. Tax relief is still critical for America for two basic reasons--moral and economic. First, there is a moral case to be made for continuing tax cuts. The robust American economy and working Americans, not government action, have produced this unprecedented revenue windfall. These unexpected dollars have come directly from working Americans--taxes paid by consumers, individual labor, and investment income. This money belongs to the American people. Washington should not be allowed to stand first in line to take that away from American families, workers, and job creators. It is moral and fair that they keep it. We have also heard the argument that we already had a large tax cut last year, so there is no need for more tax cuts. Let me set the record straight. Last year, after spending $225 billion unexpected revenue windfall and busting the 1993 budget spending caps to do it, the Republican Party delivered tax relief only one-third as large as what we would promised in 1994. Those tiny tax cuts--no more than slivers, really--amounted to less than one cent of every dollar the federal government takes from the taxpayers. Is one cent worth of tax relief too much? I do not really think so. And the President today wants to increase spending by $123 billion and increase taxes $115 billion, wiping out entirely--and more--the tax reduction of 1997. A recent Tax Foundation study shows that 1997's tax cuts came too late to stem the rising tax burden on the American families. The study finds that Federal, State and local taxes claimed an astonishing 38.2 percent of the income of a median two-income family making $55,000--up from 37.3 percent in 1996. That is about a 1 percent increase. When we ask the Government to take a small cut of 1 percent across the board they say it's impossible. But nobody asked the taxpayers how they were going to manage to pay another percent more of their income in taxes. They either had to reduce their spending or make do without. But the Federal Government doesn't have to do that. Federal taxes under President Clinton consumed 20 percent of America's entire gross domestic product in 1997. That is the highest level since 1945, when taxes were raised to finance the enormous expenses of the Second World War. The average American family today spends more on taxes than it does on food, clothing, and housing combined. If the ``hidden taxes'' that result from the high cost of government regulations are factored in, a family today gives up more than 50 percent of its annual income to the government. At a time when the combination of federal income and payroll taxes, State and local taxes, and hidden taxes consumes over half of a working family's budget, the taxpayers are in desperate need of relief. Thanks to the Clinton Administration, the Democratic minority, and the Republicans of this Congress, big government is alive and well. In fact, the Government is getting bigger, not smaller. Total taxation is at an all-time high. So is total Government spending. Annual Government spending has grown from just $100 billion in 1962 to $1.73 trillion today, an increase of more than 17 times. Even after adjustment for inflation, Government spending today is still more than three times bigger than it was 35 years ago. It will continue to grow to $1.95 trillion by 2003 nearly $2 trillion a year. In the next 5 years, the government will spend $9.7 trillion, much of it going toward wasteful or unnecessary government programs. Tax relief is the right solution because it takes power out of the hands of Washington's wasteful spenders and puts it back where it can do the most good: with families. There is also an economic case for cutting taxes for working Americans. Lower tax rates increase incentives to work, save, and invest. They help to maximize the increase in family income and improvements in standards of living. Beyond the direct benefits to families, tax cuts can have a substantial, positive impact on the economy as a whole. It was John F. Kennedy who observed that: an economy hampered with high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget just as it will never produce enough output and enough jobs. President Kennedy was able to put his theories to work in the early 1960s, when he enacted significant tax cuts that encouraged one of the few periods of sustained growth we have experienced since the Second World War. Twenty years later, President Ronald Reagan cut taxes once again. The reinvigorated economy responded enthusiastically. Mr. President, should we save Social Security first or provide tax cuts first? My answer is that we must do both in tandem. We had a very 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 enact sound fiscal policies. I agree with the Conference leadership that reforming the Social Security and Medicare programs to ensure their solvency is vitally important. Any projected budget surplus should be used partly for that purpose. Yet, I believe strongly that the 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. Our Social Security system is in serious financial trouble, a fiscal disaster-in-the-making that is not sustainable in its present form. Simply funneling money back into it will not help fix the problem. It will not build the real assets of the funds for current and future beneficiaries and it does not address the flaws of the current pay-as- you-go finance mechanism. Without fundamental reform, using the general revenue to pay for Social Security equals a stealth payroll tax increase on American workers. I believe using part of the budget surpluses to build real assets by changing the system from pay-go to pre-funded is the right way to go. The President is maintaining that not one penny of the surplus would be used for spending increases or tax cuts. To that, I must say Mr. Clinton is not being at all truthful to the American people. In his FY 1997 budget, he proposes $150 billion in new spending, which is well above the spending caps he agreed on last year. In the next five years, he will raid over $400 billion from the Social Security trust funds to pay for his Government programs. If Mr. Clinton is serious about saving Social Security, he should stop looting the Social Security surplus to fund general government programs, return the borrowed surplus to the trust funds, and withdraw his new spending initiatives--only then will he be qualified to talk about saving Social Security. Wrapping up, Republicans should not allow Mr. Clinton to hold any budget surplus hostage. We should continue pursuing our ``taxpayers' agenda'' and do what is right for working Americans. It is clear to me that returning part of the budget surplus to the taxpayers in the form of tax relief is the right thing to do. But how should we do it? In my view, the best way is to have an across-the-board marginal tax rate cut and eliminate the capital gains and estate taxes. This will help to improve American competitiveness in the global economy and increase national savings. However, tax cuts will not solve the problems once and for all. The origin of this evil is the tax code itself. We must end the tax code as we know it and replace it with a simpler, fairer and more taxpayer- friendly tax system. By creating a tax system that is more friendly to working Americans and more conducive to economic growth--one based on pro-family, pro- growth tax relief--Congress and the President can make our economy more dynamic, our businesses more competitive, and our families more prosperous as we approach the 21st century. Again, to omit tax cuts from this year's budget resolution is totally unacceptable to Republicans seeking to deliver on our commitment to return money to the taxpayers. I will not walk away from our obligation to the American taxpayers to pursue a Federal Government that serves with accountability and leaves working families a little more of their own money at the end of the day. I intend to make good on my promise to the taxpayers, and I urge my fellow Republicans, especially our leadership, in the strongest terms possible, to honor your commitment as well by considering meaningful tax relief in the budget resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to express concern at the continued efforts of some Members of Congress to use dairy farmers and consumers as vehicles for political manipulation. Late in the day on Friday, February 12, the Office of Management and Budget released a study requested by Congress which is reported to be an analysis of the economic effects of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. Unfortunately, it appears only to be a masterful work of political manipulation that skillfully avoids answering the core question of what actually is the impact of the Northeast Dairy Compact. As a watered-down compromise, the report sheds little light on the plight of dairy farmers both inside the Compact region and around the nation. Meanwhile, the New England milk tax continues to take its toll on the most vulnerable consumers. Senator Feingold and I were the authors of the amendment which directed OMB to undertake an unbiased, independent study of the direct and indirect economic effects of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. Did we receive an unbiased study? Hardly. I was informed that Compact supporters had plenty of input. Lacking the same political clout, opponents did not. What the American people have received is a sanitized product of regional politics. It's one more example of this administration's failed dairy policy. The OMB has made it painfully clear that they had neither the time, data, nor resources to produce a meaningful analysis. This is not a legitimate excuse for producing a report with exorbitant levels of ``statistical uncertainty.'' We attempted to work with OMB in addressing the issue of the inadequate time frame for conducting a meaningful study. At the beginning of the year, OMB asked for my assistance in requesting a time-extension before the release of the report. I worked with them to obtain the short extension they requested, in the interest of not rushing through the project. This was the only time an extension was requested even though I made it clear I would work with them in obtaining further extensions as necessary. So, why did OMB wait until the week before the initially scheduled release of the study to inform us that not enough time had passed to produce a significant, decisive report? If OMB could see there still was a problem with insufficient data due to the limited time the Compact has been in effect, they should have made a formal request for an extension. There was no attempt to seek an extension to allow a meaningful study, only a veiled attempt to get this request off their plate--even if it resulted in an inferior product compromising the integrity of OMB. Aren't the best economists in the government at OMB? This study questions that presumption. The attitude in a staff briefing conducted by OMB three weeks ago was that it did not want this task, and sought to get rid of it as soon as possible. We expect OMB to conduct professional and unbiased studies. Apparently, that is not possible. Even without a decent report, we all know the Compact hurts consumers. Milk prices have increased an average of 17 cents a gallon throughout New England. Those most adversely impacted include low- income families, children, and elderly residents on fixed incomes. Over the past year, a number of newspaper articles have appeared in the New England region that have questioned the legitimacy of the Compact. I ask unanimous consent that a sampling of these be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS. Opposition to the Compact is growing among state legislators from the New England area. One state may even be attempting to pull out of the Compact. Those regions with the most to lose are densely populated and have fewer dairy farmers relative to other regions. The result is an effective subsidization by urban consumers. A milk tax that burdens financially stressed working families-- especially those of lower-income, who rely on reasonable and affordable milk--is wrong. It is high time we put an end to partisan, regional politics which block real, long-term, assistance for dairy farmers. I intend to continue my efforts to oppose the Northeast Dairy Compact. This will include fighting to obtain a comprehensive, informative study on its effects and consequences. Mr. CLELAND addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the public interest contributions of the radio and television broadcasters in my home state of Minnesota. As a former broadcaster, I appreciate their efforts in our communities, and their accomplishments should not be overlooked. Last month, I reflected upon how radio has become an influential medium in the lives of many Americans throughout its 78 years of operation in the United States. As my colleagues know, January was recognized as ``National Radio Month.'' Today, I wanted to highlight in broader terms, the extraordinary influence and unselfish nature of both radio and television broadcasts. Broadcasts over the 12,200 radio stations in the U.S. serve a variety of purposes. Radio communicates with listeners during time of emergency, informs them of noteworthy community events such as fundraising drives, educates them about developing stories and current events, and entertains during long drives across our states. Americans listen to the radio an average of three hours and twelve minutes on weekdays, and four hours and 42 minutes on weekends. Similar to the listening power of radio, television has also become a vital part of our daily lives. Since the first television broadcast test in the U.S. took place during the 1920s, this medium has evolved and grown from approximately 36 broadcast television stations in 1948 to more than 1,550 stations across the country today. According to the National Association of Broadcasters, 98 percent of U.S. households currently own television receivers. And television is the main news source for 70 percent of the American public. Mr. President, many of our country's radio and television stations have participated in public service to their communities, not only out of statutory obligation for the licenses they receive, but because they have become part of their communities' way of life. I am proud of a recent Minnesota Broadcasters Association survey of station executives in which all 16 commercial television stations and 50 percent of the 242 radio stations responded. As impressive as these findings are, I am sure they represent only a microcosm of the public interest contributions of our nation's broadcasters. I was pleased to learn that radio and television stations across Minnesota raised more than $19.4 million for charities between June 1996 and June 1997, including $65 million in donated air time for Public Service Announcements. The hundreds of public service announcements broadcast each week highlighted such issues as AIDS awareness, disaster relief, safety campaigns, drunk driving, and drug and crime education programs. Additionally, of those stations surveyed, 100 percent of television stations and 95 percent of radio stations have helped charitable causes or needy individuals through fund-raising and other types of support. I know my constituents who suffered through the midwest floods of 1997 are grateful to those stations in Minnesota who were involved in local news broadcasts, public service announcements, public affairs programming, and off-air campaigns to aid disaster victims. A typical example of the Minnesota broadcasters' efforts during last year's spring floods is how Minnesota radio and television stations worked together with their listeners to raise $1.6 million to help and assist the flood victims. These stations also produced a video titled ``Beyond the Flood,'' donating the profits to the hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans who had their lives disrupted by the floods. Mr. President, the statistics I have cited do not tell the whole story. There have been hundreds of examples of how Minnesota's broadcasters have provided extraordinary local public service to communities around Minnesota. Additional past noteworthy accomplishments that come to mind include efforts by WJON-AM and its two sister stations in St. Cloud to raise money to buy bulletproof vests for the police departments. Its goal was $50,000, but ultimately raised $75,000. And stations 92 KQRS-FM and 93.7 KEGE-FM in Minneapolis have worked with Minnesota Job Services to set up a free interactive telephone hotline to connect employers with qualified applicants. Amazingly, this service registers 10,000 calls each month. Finally, some of my colleagues in the Senate have advocated that Congress or the Federal Communications Commission mandate ``free'' or further discounted air time for political candidates. While I share the concern of many of my colleagues over the decreasing level of voter participation over the last few years, I believe proponents of this idea should more closely examine the level to which broadcasters are already raising the political awareness of the electorate through news coverage and free debate time. In 1996, two-thirds of Minnesota radio stations and four in ten television stations offered free air time to political candidates, with many of those stations actually holding the events. Many more stations aired a local political affairs program or segment dealing with the local elections, and special segments profiling candidates and their positions on the issues. And nearly all of the stations surveyed appealed to their audiences to vote, whether through public service announcements, public affairs programming or the news. These efforts by Minnesota's broadcasters have helped to restore the people's faith and participation in our democracy. Through disaster relief efforts, holiday safety initiatives, fund- raising drives, school announcements, public affairs programming, and weather emergency information, Minnesota broadcasters have demonstrated their commitment and dedication to public service. I am proud to say that in some instances, these efforts have been recognized by the Minnesota Broadcasters Association through their ``Media Best Awards'' and by the National Association of Broadcasters annual ``Crystal Radio Awards.'' I applaud the leadership shown by all of Minnesota's stations, and am pleased to have shared their accomplishments with the Senate.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Securities of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, February 23, 1998, to conduct a hearing on S. 1260, The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1997.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Monday, February 23, 1998. The committee will be having a hearing, 1:00 to 5:00 p.m., on ``Caring for America's Children.''