Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak up to 12 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 today, on the 189th anniversary of his birth, to pay tribute to an American of commonsense ways and uncommon character. Let me read to you from the autobiography of Abraham Lincoln, which he penned in December of 1859. I was born February 12, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky. My parents were both born in Virginia, of undistinguished families. . . There was absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education. Of course, when I came of age I did not know much. Still somehow, I could read, write, and cipher to the Rule of Three; but that was all. I have not been to school since. The little advance I now have upon this store of education, I have picked up from time to time under the pressure of necessity. Lincoln concluded his autobiography just four paragraphs later with these words: ``There is not much of it, for the reason, I suppose, that there is not much of me.'' That was in 1859, one year before the election that thrust Abraham Lincoln into the Presidency--before the Civil War broke out and helped crystallize all that he believed about his nation--before everything he believed about himself was tested. Never again could Abraham Lincoln truthfully make the claim that ``there is not much of me.'' Mr. President, on the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, poet and biographer Carl Sandburg traveled here to the Capitol in 1959 to address a joint session of both Houses of Congress. The description he painted that day of the man born in Hardin County, Kentucky, was delivered in words far more eloquent than any I could offer up: He said, Not often does a man arrive on earth who is both steel and velvet, who is as hard as rock and soft as drifting fog, who holds in his heart and mind the paradox of terrible storm and peace unspeakable and perfect. . . The people of many other countries take Lincoln now for their own. He belongs to them. He stands for decency, honest dealing, plain talk, and funny stories. . . Millions there are who take him as a personal treasure. He had something they would like to see spread everywhere over the world. Democracy? We cannot say exactly what it is, but he had it. In his blood and bones, he carried it. In the breath of his speeches and writings, it is there. Popular government? Republican institutions? Government where the people have the say-so, one way or another telling their elected leaders what they want? He had the idea. It is there in the lights and shadows of his personality, a mystery that can be lived but never fully spoken in words. Mr. President, there are many American leaders I admire--for their convictions, their passion, and their pursuit of truth--but Abraham Lincoln towers above most all of them. At a troubled moment in our nation's history, he gave a voice to the growing number of Americans who felt out of place with the politics of the time. America is a place of inclusion, they argued, not exclusion. A place of freedom, not of slavery. The United States must stay united, they said, not severed into disparate parts. Abraham Lincoln spoke for what America was meant to be when he spoke of inclusion, unity, and equality, and by the sheer force of his single-minded dedication, his voice kept the Union from splintering forever apart. If any one man is responsible for preserving the nation during the Civil War, that man is Abraham Lincoln. ``Important principles may and must be inflexible,'' said President Lincoln in his last public address, delivered in Washington, and for that unflinching commitment, his detractors hated him. Lincoln was unfit, they said, ``shattered, dazed, utterly foolish'' . . . ``a political coward'' . . . ``timid and arrogant.'' And those were the words of his fellow Republicans. Outside his party, they labeled him ``a mole-eyed monster with a soul of leather'' and ``the present turtle at the head of the government.'' But his simple words and powerful resolve endeared him to the people, who looked on him as ``Honest Abe,'' a straightforward and sympathetic leader. He was their president, but he was also one of them. So, it was a brutal shock to the country when he was shot to death just ten blocks from here, during an evening performance at Ford's Theater. Mr. President, poised on the edge of the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall, overlooking Washington from its place of honor, rests a graceful tribute to our sixteenth president. Outside, the Lincoln Memorial possesses the lines of a classic Greek temple--inside, you will find the soul of an American patriot. Lincoln himself rises 19 feet toward the sky, sculpted in Georgia White marble, larger than life, his eyes forever focused forward. He cannot speak, but the walls speak for him. Etched into the stone around him are his words, and each time I visit I am struck by the visual marriage of man and message. One phrase in particular always makes me pause, a quotation from Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, spoken just 28 days before his assassination: With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in. We have come so far as a nation since those words were first spoken. More than one hundred years have passed since brother last took up arms against brother, and we are no longer divided by allegiance to a Confederate or Union flag. By heritage, we are black Americans, white Americans, Italian Americans, Polish Americans, Norwegian Americans-- and united under the Constitution, we are simply Americans. Abraham Lincoln did not live to finish the work he began, but the pursuit of liberty and inclusion he inspired in a nation has endured. More than once in the million recorded words he left behind, Abraham Lincoln considered his death and the reputation that history would accord him. In keeping with everything else we know about the man, however, he sought not a legacy, but his place in humanity. ``Die when I may, I want it said of me that I plucked a weed and planted a flower wherever I thought a flower would grow.'' Mr. President, Abraham Lincoln plucked many weeds during his too-brief life, and sowed a great garden of humanity in their place. On the anniversary of his birth, we celebrate the towering truths we have reaped from his planting. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, very much.

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few, brief observations about the President's budget. Let me say I welcome the fact that President Clinton has come up with a budget that may finally be balanced in the next fiscal year, although I do not agree with the outlines of his plan. The good news is that if the economy stays as strong as expected, we may soon enjoy a unified budget surplus for the first time since 1969. However, Mr. President, again, after a thorough examination of President Clinton's budget, I must say this is not at all a responsible and honest proposal. Here is why: First, President Clinton claims it is his fiscal policies that have reduced the federal deficit and brought the budget to the edge of balance. That would be stretching the truth. The productivity of the American people has brought us to this point, in spite of what Congress has done or the President's tax-and-spend habits. The truth is, the President has only been willing to balance the budget, if he is allowed to use all increases in revenues, plus even higher taxes, to match his appetite for spending on expanded programs, new programs, and new entitlements. In 1992, candidate Bill Clinton promised he would balance the budget if he were elected. When President Clinton arrived at the White House in 1993, he abandoned that promise at the front door. The first budget he proposed called for the largest tax increase in history and increased federal spending of more than a trillion dollars in just five years, a jump of 20 percent. In 1995, the President again promised America he could balance the budget, first in ten years, then nine, then eight, and finally, seven. He made a similar balanced-budget promise in 1996. Finally, after spending all of the $225 billion revenue windfall ``miraculously'' discovered by the CBO, President Clinton and the Congressional leadership agreed last year to achieve a balanced budget in six years. Mr. President, it is the American economy that produced this unprecedented revenue windfall for the federal government, and the unexpected dollars have come directly from working Americans--taxes paid by corporations, individuals, consumers, and investors. Washington did not do any heavy lifting: the people did. Yet, Washington takes all the credit. Second, the Clinton Administration claims that this budget will produce surpluses ``as far as the eye can see.'' Sure, as long as you are looking through rose-colored glasses. Such claims are explicitly intended to mislead the American people. Mr. President, this projected surplus is only a surplus under a unified budget. Without borrowing from the Social Security trust funds, the real federal deficit could reach $600 billion over five years. The total deficit will reach a trillion in the next decade. This means we will see deficits, not surpluses, as far as the eye can see. In fact, the CBO estimates the possible budget surplus could easily turn into a $100 billion deficit. I asked Dr. O'Neill last week what the odds were we would achieve a budget surplus versus ending up with a deficit, and she said it was 50/50. This uncertainty requires us to exercise fiscal discipline, not to run off and approve another $123 billion in spending as the President has proposed--money from a surplus we have not seen yet and a tobacco settlement that is only a proposal. I need to stress that a unified balanced budget is an unacceptable prospect if it is achieved at the expense of responsible governing. The truth is that the President's budget continues the tax-and-spend policies that have been the hallmark of this Administration. Again, after setting spending limits that in 1997 grew the government three times faster than inflation, or the incomes of working Americans, the President wants to blow those spending caps with another $123 billion increase in federal spending. The ink is barely dry on last year's budget agreement, which gave working Americans, or at least a few of them, $90 billion in tax relief, and now the President proposes wiping out that tax cut with $115 billion in new taxes--or increases in existing taxes, permits, or fees. The most untruthful thing about this budget is President Clinton's rhetoric that the era of big government is over. OMB director Raines testified in the Senate Budget Committee last week that by any standard, big government was indeed over. A $100 billion government 35 years ago is now 18 times larger, at $1.8 trillion. Who is kidding who? If he does not get those new taxes through Congress, the President wants to borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. President, the Congress must not permit the President to finance his spending programs, his big-government solutions, by borrowing from Social Security. If you count what Senator Gramm calls ``hidden spending'' of $42 billion, actual spending under the President's budget would reach $1.775 trillion, a 6.4 percent increase, and a Washington record. And it continues to grow from there. In 2003, the President is asking for $1.945 trillion in federal spending. Total federal spending for the next five years would reach $9.2 trillion. Annual government spending was $1.4 trillion when Mr. Clinton became president. In five years, the President has already increased government spending by 27 percent. Is there any sign of leaner government? No. The truth is that the government is growing bigger and bigger and bigger. Nor does this budget do anything to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary Federal programs. It does nothing to make the government more accountable and efficient. It actually increases civilian nondefense employment by 9,200. This is big, central government by any standard. Mr. President, as I said on the floor the other day, if this is a race to prove who can be the most ``compassionate'' with the taxpayers' dollars, it is a race nobody is going to win, and one the taxpayers most certainly will lose. The truth is simple: you cannot buy compassion. Third, the President claims that he will not bust the spending caps set up by last year's budget agreement. Again, this is not true. President Clinton has not only violated the spirit of the budget deal, he has also in effect broken the statutory spending caps established under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Secretary Rubin assured us last week that the President would be bound by the budget agreement we reached last year. But by the President's own estimates, his budget does not meet the statutory caps on discretionary spending by actually reducing that spending. The offsets proposed in the budget are highly questionable. To stay within the caps called for by last year's Balanced Budget Act, the President anticipates the use of $60 billion in tax increases to offset discretionary spending. By doing so, without amending the law, the budget in effect violates the two separate enforcement measures set up by the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, and it violates the spirit of last year's budget deal. Mr. President, we broke the 1993 statutory spending caps last year, and we must never repeat that mistake. The current spending caps must stay in place. Fourth, President Clinton claims that his budget will save Social Security. Again, the President is not being truthful to the American people. On the contrary, his budget does nothing to address our long- term financial imbalances. And his call for increased spending would use all of any surplus, leaving nothing for Social Security. In fact, under the unified budget, the President will borrow another trillion dollars from the Social Security Trust Fund by the year 2012. The President's Medicare proposal in this budget does more harm than good. Although the President has proposed putting the projected budget surplus into the Social Security trust funds, he has no specific plan of how to save Social Security. Simply throwing money into the system without real reform will not preserve it. President Clinton's own Social Security Commissioner, Kenneth Apfel, recently said the President's proposal to bail out Social Security could not alone come close to solving the system's impending deficit. It may only extend the fund for two to five years. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed with this budget and troubled by its untruthfulness to the American people. Although our short-term fiscal condition has improved in recent years, thanks to what Chairman Greenspan called an ``exceptionally healthy'' economy, our long-term fiscal imbalances still impose a threat to our future. Washington's bills remain astronomic. We have a $5.5 trillion national debt, at least $14 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, and more than $5 trillion worth of government contingencies. These risks will shatter our economy if we fail to take action now. If the President will not step up and take the lead in ensuring fiscal responsibility, then Congress must. We must continue to cut government spending, shrink the size of the government, and reform Social Security and Medicare to save them. Mr. President, in the next few months, I intend to work with my colleagues and the Administration to exercise the fiscal discipline necessary to ensure the federal budget will be balanced--and stay balanced--without new taxes, without new spending, and without borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund. That is the responsible thing to do. That is the honest thing to do. And, Mr. President, that is the right thing to do.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, over the course of the debate on Dr. Satcher's nomination for Assistant Secretary of Health and Surgeon General, Senator Ashcroft and others have expressed some issues of concern. First, Dr. Satcher's comments regarding abortion. Second, an AZT study in Africa to research alternative treatments for developing nations to the costly and inaccessible AZT regimen. While I initially had concerns about Dr. Satcher's comments on abortion, I wanted to listen to the debate, examine additional written responses Dr. Satcher provided to the committee on this issue, and make my decision. During the committee's consideration of Dr. Satcher, he stated that he supports President Clinton in his veto of the ban on partial-birth- abortions. After the hearings, he tried to back-track. In his October 28, 1997 written comments to Senator Frist, Dr. Satcher further explained his position on abortion and I'd like to quote those remarks. Let me state unequivocally that I have no intention of using the positions of Assistant Secretary for Health and Surgeon General to promote issues related to abortion. I share no one's political agenda and I want to use the power of these positions to focus on issues that unite Americans--not divide them. I am not comforted by this clarification of his position. Mr. President, I believe we as a nation require a Surgeon General who's position on this issue is one of furthering policies which, at a minimum, do not give tacit approval of a procedure that 75 to 80 percent of Americans agree is barbaric and unneeded. With regard to the AZT trials to prevent the maternal-to-infant transfer of HIV in Africa, I also share some concerns about the protocol set up in this study. Specifically, the use of a placebo control group. Mr. President, I have always been a strong supporter of medical research. I cannot, however, endorse or condone research done in developing countries in a manner which we would not conduct it here in our own Nation--with our own constituents as the subjects of that research. Mr. President, I listened to both sides of the arguments and came to a conclusion. I have no reason to believe Dr. David Satcher is not qualified to serve as Assistant Secretary of Health and Surgeon General of the United States. However, I, for the reasons cited earlier, could not in good conscience support his nomination.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am particularly impressed at how effectively the state agencies, GSA and the Defense Re-utilization and Marketing Service have worked together as a team to respond quickly and efficiently during times of national disasters and emergencies. Together they have successfully identified and transported sandbags, blankets, cots, tools, trucks and other equipment and supplies to disaster sites. In 1997, the state agencies and their federal partners faced a number of emergencies--and they delivered. And I know Minnesotans who suffered through the Midwest floods last year appreciated the relief provided to them during these horrible times. I recently received a letter from Dave Allen, Chief Pilot of the Minnesota State Patrol, and a recipient of surplus property distributed by the Minnesota State Agency for Surplus Property for the last several years. Mr. Allen wrote: In February 1997 our unit had the need for a twin engine airplane. One week after I made the request for this type of aircraft, Gene Glaeser called and said he had located an aircraft he thought would meet our needs. It was a Beechcraft Queen Air and it had been used by NASA for several years and was based at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. The Beechcraft Queen Air acquired from NASA including the training of six pilots cost the State approximately $35,000 to place it in service. This aircraft had been appraised at $150,000-$175,000 by an aircraft broker . . . Had the surplus property program not been available to us our chances of acquiring this equipment would not have existed. This is a perfect example of our government obtaining the most from a piece of equipment . . . I would hope that this program would continue for many years in the future, as everyone benefits from it. The plane filled a very important need during last year's floods by shuttling state and emergency management staff to meetings, where they assessed the damage in our communities and provided guidance to residents. The state agencies for surplus property should be commended for following the intent of Congress and fulfilling their responsibilities under Public Law 94-519. However, I believe that the volume and value of distributed surplus federal property would increase if the intent of the Congress when it passed the 1976 reforms was more closely followed. If Congress continues to allow surplus federal property to go abroad, or not make its way through proper channels to eligible recipients, our students, workers, taxpayers, and families will lose. The legislation I am introducing will address these concerns through the following provisions. First, this legislation would ensure that when distributing surplus federal property, domestic needs are met before we consider foreign interests. It would, however, grant the President the authority to make supplies available for humanitarian relief purposes before going to the states, in the case of emergencies or natural disasters. Second, my bill would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to prohibit the transfer of Government-owned excess property to foreign countries or international organizations for environmental protection activities in foreign countries unless GSA determined that there is no federal or state use for the property. Fourth, my bill would repeal the authority of the Secretary of Energy to transfer excess DOE research and development facility equipment to educational institutions in the U.S. This current practice by DOE falls outside the Donation Program and denies equal access to all local education agencies, schools and universities. Third, it would ensure that 8(a) firms participating in the Small Business Administration's Capital Ownership Development Program maintain their eligibility to receive surplus Federal property, but through the normal process involving GSA and the State agencies. States, not bureaucracies, should determine how to meet the needs of our schools and universities. Finally, this legislation would require GSA to report to Congress on the effectiveness of all statutes relating to the disposal and donation of personal property and recommend any changes that would further improve the Donation Program. Mr. President, my bill is based on the principle that eligible recipients should be able to maximize their tax dollars through expendable Federal property that meets their needs. It takes an important step toward stopping publicly-owned property from being shipped abroad and given to other organizations before it is distributed through each State agency for surplus property. My legislation will fulfill the public's right to know how and where their tax dollars are being spent. In many ways, it will serve as the second phase of the reforms overwhelmingly passed by Congress in 1976, by preserving the active role of States in the handling and distribution of surplus Federal property. This initiative will benefit thousands of recipients--the Nation's taxpayers. The best interests of America's taxpayers has always been at the top of my agenda. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to move this legislation through Congress and give the taxpayers the highest possible return on their investment.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Federal Surplus Property Improvement Act of 1998'' and ask my colleagues for their support of this legislation. Congressional oversight of our country's surplus personal property donation program may not be a topic of debate in the Senate, but it is of great importance to my constituents and the 70,000 recipients of surplus federal personal property in all of our states. Members of Congress and state and local officials all have an obligation to see that the government distributes this property fairly and equitably, ensuring accountability to the taxpayers. Too often, federal agencies forget that the owners of this property are the American people--the federal government is merely its public custodian. As my colleagues may know, once a piece of federal personal property such as a typewriter, chair or vehicle is declared ``excess'' by a federal agency, it is offered to other federal agencies for their use. If no other agency can utilize the property, it is donated to the states or other public agencies. The current system of disposal is based on reforms signed into law by President Ford over twenty years ago. The reforms to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 enacted in 1976 were based on concerns that as surplus property distribution programs multiplied, confusion and inefficiency on the part of the federal government grew as well. Congress realized that the various state agencies and the General Services Administration should work together to ensure a fair and equitable allocation of surplus federal property to eligible recipients. Under this new partnership, states would have a greater role over distribution, while GSA would guide the overall system on the federal side. Mr. President, the 1976 reforms also broadened the pool of eligible recipients to include parks and recreation, conservation, public health and public safety. Since then, each state agency for surplus property has worked with neighboring state agencies and GSA to provide the equipment, supplies and material used to educate our children, maintain roads and streets, keep utility rates reasonable, train the workers of tomorrow, protect families from crime, and during natural disasters, treat the health of our nation's sick and needy. Through the efforts of the state agencies for surplus property, eligible recipients have acquired impressive pieces of equipment such as trailers, forklifts, fire trucks, aircraft, boats and generators. The original acquisition value of property distributed through the U.S. state agencies for surplus property totaled over $537 million in fiscal year 1997. Over the last few weeks, I have heard from many recipients of surplus federal property and ask unanimous consent that their letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 11, and immediately following the prayer the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate immediately resume consideration of the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 1601, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, as previously ordered.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Tomorrow morning, as previously ordered, the Senate will resume debate on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 1601, the cloning bill, with the time from 9:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. being equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. Also, as previously ordered, at 10 a.m. a rollcall vote will occur on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 1601. If cloture is invoked, the Senate will debate the motion to proceed on the cloning bill. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate can be expected to resume the Massiah-Jackson nomination. At approximately 4 p.m. on Wednesday, the Senate can be expected to begin debate on the nomination of Margaret Morrow, of California, to be U.S. district judge. Therefore, additional votes can be expected to occur during Wednesday's session of the Senate. As a reminder to all Senators, tomorrow at 10 a.m. a vote will occur on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 1601 the Human Cloning Prohibition Act.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) on the occasion of the 88th Anniversary of its founding on February 8, 1998. At the turn of the century in England, Robert Baden-Powell, an outdoor enthusiast and a veteran of the British Army's campaigns in Africa, published a nature skills book intended for young people to expose them to the rewards offered by a working knowledge of nature. The book was titled ``Scouting for Boys'' and was based on survival manuals Baden-Powell authored during his military career. Shortly after the book's publication, Baden-Powell led a group of 22 boys on a scouting exhibition on Brownsea Island, off the coast of England, for the purpose of applying the principles contained in the book. From that original group of 22 sprang forth a movement which now boasts over 5 million members in this country alone, and continues to grow each year. In my home state of Minnesota, the Viking Council of the Boy Scouts of America serves over 57,000 youths between the ages of 5 and 20, making it the 21st largest of the 335 Boy Scout Councils in this country. Participation in the Boy Scouts of America gives young people a sense of self-worth and satisfaction that is the product of setting and accomplishing goals, and being a part of a winning team. Such experiences cultivate discipline and a sense of responsibility that are assets for life. By cooperating with peers to achieve a common end, Scouts learn valuable lessons in leadership. Countless civic, professional, and community leaders throughout our Nation were involved in the Boy Scouts of America as youths, including 302 members of the 104th Congress. Through programs like the ``Urban Scouting Emphasis,'' which has over 4,300 participants in urban Minneapolis, the Boy Scouts of America is bringing its valuable life lessons to inner city youth who are particularly at risk of falling victim to the entrapments of the streets. The Boy Scouts of America offers a place where young people can gain a sense of belonging and loyalty that they may otherwise seek to find in street gangs. Furthermore, the importance of programs like ``Urban Emphasis'' is amplified when considering the annual cost per youth served by Viking Council is $58.31, whereas the cost of housing a juvenile offender is $100.00 per day. Of course all the forementioned would hardly be possible without the adult volunteers who are the foundation of the Boy Scouts of America. Currently there are over 1.3 million men and women nationwide who, in the spirit of Robert Baden-Powell, graciously give their time and talents to ensure that the youth of society grow into well-adjusted adults. Adult volunteers touch the lives of young people by serving as excellent role models and teachers, as well as caring friends. The Boy Scouts' objectives are defined in the ``Aim of Scouting'' as being character development, citizenship training, and personal fitness. On the surface, these aims may seem simplistic, yet many have forgotten the importance of these principles. Thankfully, these principles continue to prosper in the Boy Scouts of America. Mr. President, for 88 years the Boy Scouts of America has been teaching the value of community, Nation, and Creator to our Nation's youth. This is truly grounds for celebration.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to rise today to introduce the Survivors of Torture Support Act and to ask my colleagues for their support, and I send the bill to the desk.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, most people do not realize that torture is practiced or condoned in more than 100 countries. We all agree that torture is a horrible act. It is designed to physically and emotionally cripple individuals, to render them incapable of mounting an effective opposition to a regime or a system of beliefs. Torture does not affect just the victim--it sends a strong message to the victim's family, community, and nation that dissent will not be tolerated. Torture is not used as a weapon just against an individual-- it is used as a weapon against democracy. As a nation, we cannot stand by and continue to let the victims of torture suffer in silence. We must do more than proclaim that the practice of torture is abhorrent. We must provide assistance to torture survivors, for they truly are not able to help themselves. The ``Survivors of Torture Support Act'' will assist victims of torture both here and abroad. While the practice of torture is not a problem in this country, many victims of torture flee to the United States to seek refuge. As many as 400,000 torture survivors now live in the United States. Many of the survivors may not be getting the assistance they need. Other survivors of torture remain abroad; they deserve effective treatment as well. The ``Survivors of Torture Support Act'' makes changes in U.S. immigration policy to account for the special needs of torture survivors. This bill designates torture victims as refugees of special humanitarian concern. It ensures expedited processing for asylum applicants who present credible claims of subjection to torture. It also establishes procedures for taking into account the effects of torture in the adjudication of such claims. This bill grants the presumption that such applicants shall not be detained while their asylum claims are pending, and provides exemption from expedited removal procedures for individuals in danger of being subjected to torture. Many times, torture survivors are not identified by U.S. officials because consular, immigration, and also asylum personnel have not received adequate training in either the identification of evidence of torture or the techniques for interviewing torture victims. The ``Survivors of Torture Support Act'' requires that the Attorney General and the Secretary of State provide training necessary for these officials to recognize the effects of torture on victims, and the way this can affect the interview or hearing process. It also requires special training in interview techniques, so that survivors of torture are not traumatized by this experience. Torture survivors can be productive members of American society if they have access to treatment. That is why this bill provides $50 million over three years for treatment of victims of torture in the United States and abroad. My home state of Minnesota is fortunate to have the first comprehensive treatment center in the United States for victims of torture. The Center for Victims of Torture has treated more than 500 patients since it was established in 1985, and by helping those patients overcome the atrocities suffered in their homelands, has assisted them in becoming productive members of our communities. In addition to providing treatment to persons who have been tortured by foreign governments, the Center has been active in providing training and support for treatment centers abroad. I have learned a great deal from visiting the Center and meeting its clients and staff. Support for legislation to assist torture survivors has been increasing since Senator Dave Durenberger first introduced it in 1994. I have worked closely with my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, in developing legislation to address the very real needs of these survivors. While we have chosen different paths in bringing this issue before the Senate, our bills differ primarily in approach. Therefore, I applaud his efforts and look forward to working closely with him to move legislation forward in 1998 that will assist victims of torture who reside in the U.S. and also abroad. The United States should take a leading role in encouraging the establishment of additional treatment programs both at home and also abroad. We are making progress in this direction. The U.S. is now the largest contributor to the United Nations voluntary fund for victims of torture. We must continue to support treatment centers, like the one in Minnesota, which help those who cannot help themselves. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, most people do not realize that torture is practiced or condoned in more than 100 countries. We all agree that torture is a horrible act. It is designed to physically and emotionally cripple individuals, to render them incapable of mounting an effective opposition to a regime or a system of beliefs. Torture does not affect just the victim--it sends a strong message to the victim's family, community, and nation that dissent will not be tolerated. Torture is not used as a weapon just against an individual-- it is used as a weapon against democracy. As a nation, we cannot stand by and continue to let the victims of torture suffer in silence. We must do more than proclaim that the practice of torture is abhorrent. We must provide assistance to torture survivors, for they truly are not able to help themselves. The ``Survivors of Torture Support Act'' will assist victims of torture both here and abroad. While the practice of torture is not a problem in this country, many victims of torture flee to the United States to seek refuge. As many as 400,000 torture survivors now live in the United States. Many of the survivors may not be getting the assistance they need. Other survivors of torture remain abroad; they deserve effective treatment as well. The ``Survivors of Torture Support Act'' makes changes in U.S. immigration policy to account for the special needs of torture survivors. This bill designates torture victims as refugees of special humanitarian concern. It ensures expedited processing for asylum applicants who present credible claims of subjection to torture. It also establishes procedures for taking into account the effects of torture in the adjudication of such claims. This bill grants the presumption that such applicants shall not be detained while their asylum claims are pending, and provides exemption from expedited removal procedures for individuals in danger of being subjected to torture. Many times, torture survivors are not identified by U.S. officials because consular, immigration, and also asylum personnel have not received adequate training in either the identification of evidence of torture or the techniques for interviewing torture victims. The ``Survivors of Torture Support Act'' requires that the Attorney General and the Secretary of State provide training necessary for these officials to recognize the effects of torture on victims, and the way this can affect the interview or hearing process. It also requires special training in interview techniques, so that survivors of torture are not traumatized by this experience. Torture survivors can be productive members of American society if they have access to treatment. That is why this bill provides $50 million over three years for treatment of victims of torture in the United States and abroad. My home state of Minnesota is fortunate to have the first comprehensive treatment center in the United States for victims of torture. The Center for Victims of Torture has treated more than 500 patients since it was established in 1985, and by helping those patients overcome the atrocities suffered in their homelands, has assisted them in becoming productive members of our communities. In addition to providing treatment to persons who have been tortured by foreign governments, the Center has been active in providing training and support for treatment centers abroad. I have learned a great deal from visiting the Center and meeting its clients and staff. Support for legislation to assist torture survivors has been increasing since Senator Dave Durenberger first introduced it in 1994. I have worked closely with my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, in developing legislation to address the very real needs of these survivors. While we have chosen different paths in bringing this issue before the Senate, our bills differ primarily in approach. Therefore, I applaud his efforts and look forward to working closely with him to move legislation forward in 1998 that will assist victims of torture who reside in the U.S. and also abroad. The United States should take a leading role in encouraging the establishment of additional treatment programs both at home and also abroad. We are making progress in this direction. The U.S. is now the largest contributor to the United Nations voluntary fund for victims of torture. We must continue to support treatment centers, like the one in Minnesota, which help those who cannot help themselves. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, 85 years ago today, the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, giving Congress the power to levy an income tax on the people. As we mark this occasion, I rise to call upon Congress to take immediate action to end the federal tax code as we know it, and end 85 years of ever-increasing hardship for America's taxpayers. Let me focus on how we got here and why we need real tax reform. Mr. President, this great Nation was born out of a revolt against the abusive taxing powers of its motherland. This tax revolt created a nation of individual liberty. In this land, a person owns himself, his labor, and the fruit of his labor. To protect individual liberty, our founders crafted Clause 4 of Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, rejecting all direct income taxes that were not apportioned to each State by its population. This clause, as originally adopted in the Constitution, clearly reflected the genius, wisdom, and experience of our founders-- protecting individual liberty by limiting the Government's power to tax. For more than 100 years following the founding of this nation, the American people enjoyed tax freedom and did not pay any income taxes. Although an income tax was imposed as a temporary measure to finance the Civil War in 1862, it was repealed shortly after the war ended. In the same period--during the last decade of the 18th, the entire 19th, and first decade of the 20th century--the Supreme Court also defended this freedom and held the income tax to be unconstitutional. However, under the direct influence of the rise of socialism in Europe at that time, on February 3rd, 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. The 16th Amendment says: ``The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'' Mr. President, in my view, nothing has been more damaging to America's families than the 16th Amendment. It opened a Pandora's box we have never since been able to contain. A few months after the Amendment was ratified, the Revenue Act of 1913 was enacted, imposing an individual income tax. The ratification of the 16th Amendment and enactment of the first tax code fundamentally eroded individual liberty and created the shadow of servitude that has darkened our Nation since. Former IRS Commissioner T. Coleman Andrews said the 16th Amendment, in effect, repealed Article Four of the Bill of Rights. The 16th Amendment has empowered tax collectors to invade our citizen's homes, papers, and private affairs. Worse still, it is used for social engineering, redistributing private income, and promoting class warfare. Initially, the income tax did not apply to individuals with taxable incomes less than $3,000, which in today's dollars means that people with incomes of $44,000 or lower would be exempted from paying tax. It only imposed a one-percent tax on the first $20,000, which equals over $300,000 in today's dollars. The highest tax rate was up to 7 percent for income above $500,000, which equals over $8 million today. Less than one percent of all Americans paid any income tax in 1913. Only 5 percent of Americans paid any income tax as late as 1939, before World War II. Then came the New Deal, which tripled Government spending, producing a large Federal budget deficit. It was the Second World War that gave the Government an excuse to enact the first mass income tax increase in U.S. history. The lowest tax rate rose from 4 percent on income over $4,000 to 23 percent on income over $2,000. Higher taxes were accompanied by a withholding system that took money out of each worker's paycheck, rather than requiring them to pay their taxes in one lump-sum payment at the end of the year. After the war, tax rates and Federal revenue receded somewhat, but never returned to prewar levels. Today, the Federal tax burden is at an historic high. For the average worker, more than three hours of every eight-hour working day are dedicated just to paying taxes. The average American family spends more on taxes than it does on food, clothing, transportation, and housing combined. A typical median-income family can expect to pay nearly 40 percent of its income in Federal, State, and local taxes. This. In 1996, an average household with an annual income between $22,500 and $30,000 paid an average of $9,000 for food, clothing, and housing and paid $11,000 in total taxes. Households with incomes ranging from $45,000 to $60,000 averaged $16,000 for basic necessities, and paid the tax collector $25,000. 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. The budget submitted yesterday by the President continues this pattern of growing Federal intrusion into the taxpayers' daily lives. While I have always called for a smaller, more efficient Government, the President's budget endorses just the opposite. While I want to close down Government agencies that do not perform their duties, the President wants to give them more money. That includes the Department of Energy, a taxpayer-financed black hole for which the President wants to boost spending by another 8 percent next year. Overall, it appears the President would increase Federal spending by $135 billion and raise taxes and fees by $115 billion to pay for all that new spending. And the President's scheme to help fund his laundry list of new initiatives by using $65.5 billion in tobacco settlement proceeds is risky--if a settlement does not occur, then where do the dollars come from? Even higher taxes? I know some of my colleagues take offense when I use the phrase ``Washington's big spenders.'' But I cannot think of any euphemism in which to couch what is happening here. This is a budget cooked up by big spenders and served to a taxpaying public that did not order it and does not want it. But that has long been the pattern in Washington. To make matters worse, as the tax burden has grown higher and more unfair, the government tax collector, the IRS, has turned into an arrogant, inefficient, cold-hearted, heavy-handed, intrusive, and abusive bureaucracy. We have heard many horror stories about how IRS agents routinely use their enormous coercive power to squeeze more money out of the taxpayer's pockets to meet the demands of ever- increasing Government spending. Not only do people pay more taxes, but they spend more time and money calculating their tax burden. Our tax system has become extremely complicated and difficult to understand, even for IRS experts. Do you know the tax code was only 14 pages long when it was first enacted, but today it has grown to 10,000 pages, and on top of that, there are another 20 volumes of tax regulations, and thousands and thousands of pages of instructions and other guidance. The current tax code is anti-family and anti-economic growth. It destroys economic opportunity, hinders job creation, impedes productivity, and retards competitiveness. It has deepened despair and disaffection among the poor and disadvantaged. It encourages abuse, waste, and corruption. Our Nation faces many great challenges in the 21st century. But without real change, the present tax system will fail to lead us there. We must fix the system. To correct the problem once and for all, Congress must pass new legislation to fundamentally reform our tax system and replace the ever-more-complicated tax code with one that is simpler, fairer, and more friendly to the taxpayers. The American people deserve a new tax code that promotes harmony among people instead of promoting class warfare; a new tax code that encourages work and savings; a new code that rewards families and success rather than penalizing them; a new code that stimulates real economic growth and produces more jobs and higher tax revenue for the Government; a new tax code that allows people to keep more of their own money. Congress should explore all possible solutions to achieve these objectives. The 85th anniversary of the 16th Amendment's ratification is an ignoble occasion. I urge my colleagues to reflect on this day and what it has come to mean to America's struggling taxpayers. And I urge them to join me in a pledge to the people that we will not let another anniversary come and go before we dedicate ourselves to ending the tax code as we know it. I yield the floor.