Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I inquire of the business now before the Senate.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, during the debate on reforming the United Nations to make it a more effective organization, there was little discussion about the important work that the United Nations carries out. One good example which directly relates to my State is, the U.N.'s leading role in promoting and providing financial assistance to treatment centers for victims of torture around the world. The passage of my amendment to the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1997, which authorizes the United States to contribute $3 million in fiscal year 1998 and $3 million in fiscal year 1999 to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, ensures that treatment centers in more than 50 countries will continue to receive support. I would like to thank the junior Senator from Minnesota for cosponsoring my amendment, and joining me in being an advocate for helping victims of torture. My home State of Minnesota is fortunate to have the first and only comprehensive treatment center in the United States for victims of torture. The Center for Victims of Torture has treated over 500 patients since it was established in 1985, and has enabled them to become productive members of our communities by overcoming the atrocities suffered in their countries of origin. I have learned a great deal from visiting the Center and meeting its clients and staff. 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. The United States should take a leading role in encouraging the establishment of additional treatment programs both at home and abroad. We are making progress in this direction. The United States is now the largest contributor to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. We must continue to support treatment centers, like the one in Minnesota, which helps those who cannot help themselves--victims of torture. Dedicating more of our U.N. voluntary funds for this purpose will help provide this important service to more needy victims.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, during the negotiations to achieve passage of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1997, a number of concessions had to be made to accommodate competing interests. One such example was the continuation of the authorization for the East- West Center at the current level of $10 million for both fiscal years 1998 and 1999. According to its budget justification, the East-West Center seeks to improve understanding and relations between Asia, the Pacific islands, and America. While this may be a worthwhile endeavor, we must question whether it merits a direct subsidy when the center seems to duplicate State Department activities and other private business, academic, cultural exchange, and tourism programs. The East-West Center already receives a high proportion of its funding from private sources and project specific Federal grants. It seems that it could continue its core functions without the American taxpayer footing the bill. Even the Clinton administration has recognized the need to terminate Federal funding for this center. The administration's budget summary noted that the effort to phase out governmental funding for the East-West Center will continue with its request of $7 million. Yesterday we took a step backwards from achieving that goal. It is my sincere hope that the appropriators will reduce funding from the current level. I started my fight to eliminate Federal funding for the East-West Center nearly 2 years ago, and I plan to continue my efforts. Many of my colleagues think that $10 million isn't a lot of money considering that we have a $1.6 trillion budget. I believe every expenditure should be reviewed regularly. At a time when Congress, at the request of the taxpayers, is working to finally balance the budget, this kind of sole- source, noncompetitive project can no longer be justified.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this historic, bipartisan deal was the result of arduous, delicate negotiations--nearly 5 months of painstaking talks with the chairman, the administration, Senator Biden, and his staff. After all that work, after all that effort, we have succeeded in hammering out a fragile bipartisan deal--a deal which saves the American taxpayers money, reforms our foreign affairs apparatus, and requires much needed reform at the United Nations. None of us got everything we wanted. All of us had to make concessions. But the result is a package that, while far from perfect, is something we should all be able to live with. I strongly support the U.N. reform measures. These reforms will help the American taxpayer, and help the international community by creating a United Nations that works. History shows that reforms at the United Nations only happen when Congress mandates those reforms by making its U.N. payments conditional on the implementation of reforms. Consider the recent record: Congress withheld funding until the United Nations established an Independent Office of Internal Oversight--and it happened, and Congress withheld funding until the United Nations appointed an inspector general--and it happened. Under the terms of this legislation, we reduce our regular budget assessment to 20 percent. We reduce our peacekeeping assessment to 25 percent. We reimburse the American taxpayers for U.S. assistance to U.N. peacekeeping operations. We establish an inspector general in the big three agencies to root out waste, fraud, and corruption. We ensure a U.S. seat on the budget committee. These are some of the conditions which must be accepted by the United Nations in order to receive the payment of the $819 million in arrears. They are not radical; they are not extreme; they provide a framework for change so the United Nations can become more effective. We have crafted a reform package that is necessary. This is a package that will work. This is a historic piece of legislation. We are dismantling our cold war foreign relations bureaucracy; we are creating a more effective United Nations, and we are prioritizing our international affairs expenditures. We need a more effective foreign affairs apparatus, both at home and at the United Nations, in order to confront the challenges to peace and security in the future. This bill will help us to provide the structure that we will need for America to secure its leadership role in the international arena.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as the subcommittee chairman with jurisdiction over the bill before us today, I worked diligently with members on both sides of the aisle, and with the administration, to craft legislation which will strengthen America's leadership role in the international arena. This package reorganizes our foreign relations bureaucracy, establishes benchmarks for the payment of U.N. arrears, and prioritizes our international affairs expenditures. We need a more effective foreign affairs apparatus, both at home and at the United Nations, in order to confront the challenges to peace and security in the future. This bipartisan agreement is the result of a good-faith effort to accommodate conflicting perspectives on how we, as a nation, should mobilize our resources. There were tough, lengthy negotiations on this package. We had to reconcile competing interests, and as a result, nobody is completely satisfied with the final product. I will be the first to say that this bill is not perfect. I would have preferred much more in the way of reforms and budget discipline. But this is a good agreement; and in this case, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I want to reassure my colleagues that I am open to oversight hearings that would address their concerns and closely examine the implementation of the changes we have made. In order to effectively safeguard the national interest, we must reorganize our foreign policy apparatus. This nation is saddled with an unwieldy Cold War foreign policy bureaucracy in which many of the functions of AID, ACDA, USIA and the International Development Cooperation Agency could be better handled by the State Department. This legislation does not go as far as I would like in consolidating our foreign relations bureaucracy. But for now, this package has a major advantage over a more complete consolidation--this package is achievable. It is a solid first step. Hopefully, these reforms will lead to further streamlining in the future--the American people want our Government to not only reflect their wishes abroad, but they want it to do so coherently. We are more likely to achieve our goals if we have a single voice representing the administration's position in the conduct of foreign relations, rather than a number of competing fiefdoms which undercut the authority of the Secretary of State. For example, under the new structure, we no longer should be stymied by a good-cop, bad-cop approach to foreign policy, whereby the entities who hand out U.S. foreign aid maintain good relations with client nations, while the Department of State essentially holds the line in protecting U.S. interests. We should not be handing out foreign aid to a country at a time when that very country is clearly acting against our interests. When we distribute foreign aid, it should be with an understanding that the United States entity asking for cooperation from a country in one arena is coordinating with the United States entity that will be delivering assistance to that country. Under this plan, the different parts of our foreign policy apparatus have a structural imperative to act in concert. Granted, the United States is not alone in the need to downsize its bureaucracy and eliminate waste. The United Nations must do the same. My visits to the United Nations as the United States Congressional Delegate to the U.N. General Assembly served to reinforce my commitment to salvage this organization. In this age, any organization burdened with a bloated bureaucracy and no mechanisms to control spending, will collapse under the weight of its own inefficiency. Most United Nations officials recognize the need for reform, and have started to work to achieve some of them. Indeed, in her former position as Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary Albright was an outspoken critic of waste, fraud, and abuse and was instrumental in initiating an oversight process. However, most of her efforts were stymied by an entrenched bureaucracy. True reform will only occur when there are tangible incentives to change. I believe that the United Nations needs the discipline of actual benchmarks tied to the arrears to provide the impetus for fundamental change. We have seen how difficult it is to streamline our own bureaucracy. It is even more difficult to streamline an international organization where each member is involved in these decisions. We are not seeking to micro-manage U.N. reforms. We want to work with our fellow U.N. members to make the organization the best it can be. This bill provides a 3-year payment of $819 million in arrears to the United Nations in conjunction with the achievement of specific benchmarks that will help us enhance the vitality of the United Nations. I joined Ambassador Richardson at the United Nations late last week to brief Secretary General Kofi Annan and the Permanent Representatives of many of our allies' delegations on the details of this package. I was repeatedly asked whether the $819 million was a firm number. I indicated that it is a carefully negotiated figure that I believe will remain firm. I would like to remind my colleagues that the House bill contains no provision at all for the payment of arrears. The U.N. officials also wanted to know whether the benchmarks were conditions or suggestions. The benchmarks are what I call, somewhat tongue-in-check, ``mandatory suggestions.'' They are suggestions in the sense that the United Nations can choose whether or not to adopt them, and mandatory in the sense that if the U.N. wants the money it will have to implement the reforms. If the United Nations ignores the need for reform, than the United Nations will have to forgo the $819 million. I regret that a statement I made in New York last week was misinterpreted to suggest that somehow benchmarks were negotiable or optional. My intent was to indicate that the details regarding the implementation of certain conditions could be worked out with our fellow U.N. members--as long as the benchmark goals are achieved. You know, there is a difference here. Many of the benchmarks establish broad parameters on the direction we believe the United Nations should be going. The final small details and the micromanaging of how those are accomplished and reached will be the work of negotiations between member states. We are setting out a macropackage of reforms that I believe most members at the United Nations recognize need to be made. These reforms are heading the United Nations in the direction that it needs to go in order to become a very efficient organization. There is significant interest in the Congress to withhold the payment of arrears until there is tangible evidence that reform has occurred. After all, this is not the U.S. Government's money, it is the taxpayers money. Americans should be able to ensure that their hard earned money will not be squandered. I was greatly encouraged that the Secretary General remains committed to reforms and will work with us to achieve them. I strongly believe that the United Nations is an important forum for debate between member states and a vehicle for joint action when warranted. It is not a world government. However, the United Nations must endorse reforms that provide transparency and accountability so it is embraced as the former, instead of feared as the latter. I firmly believe that this package will improve the United Nations to the point where the United Nations can win back public support which has eroded over the years. These reforms are critical to ensure the United Nations is effective and relevant. I urge my colleagues to support the entire bipartisan package and, especially, to understand how difficult it was to arrive at an agreement on the arrears. I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee for their diligence and perseverance in effecting this compromise, an effort which took many months. I am pleased that the Administration has agreed, albeit reluctantly, to this agreement. I look forward to the implementation of the measures which will enhance America's ability to exert leadership in the international arena through the consolidation of our foreign relations apparatus. I am hopeful that the United Nations will accept the reforms and in doing so, will increase its ability to perform its mission. This agreement is in America's best interest, and the best interest of the entire international community. Thank you, very much. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that Congress and the President have finally agreed to the compromise proposal I offered earlier this week to smooth the way for passage of emergency flood relief for the people of Minnesota and the Dakotas. My compromise calls for separate votes on the emergency disaster relief bill and on legislation to protect the American people from a Government shutdown. Today's vote confirms that was the best way to build the necessary consensus in Washington to deliver flood relief as quickly as possible. The people of my home state of Minnesota have been waiting with increasing impatience for Washington to stop talking about delivering recovery aid and finally do something about it. They have been waiting for Congress and the President to work together to finally bridge the gap that led to the veto that now holds up flood relief. I am pleased to say that today, the waiting ends and the rebuilding process can move ahead. This flood recovery aid means more to us in Minnesota than simply dollars. It sends the message that the people of Minnesota and the Dakotas, who have endured so much during this critical time, have not been forgotten by Washington, and that the promises made by Congress and the President to our States will be promises kept. But our work does not end with this vote. Once we pass this bill and the President signs it into law, we must keep a watchful eye to ensure that the recovery and rebuilding process in Minnesota and the Dakotas can go forward without any further delays caused by gridlock in Washington. That is why I believe that Congress must pass the Government Shutdown Prevention Act, which will protect Minnesotans from a Government shutdown as we rebuild our State from the damages caused by the flood. Under my proposal, which we will adopt today, we can have that vote, free from any procedural delays, and give the people of Minnesota and the Dakotas that important assurance. Mr. President, this has been a stressful time for individuals, families, farmers, and businesses in the Midwest devastated by the flooding. The delays from Washington did not help anybody. But with this agreement today, we have reduced the chance that a manmade disaster this fall, in the form of a Government shutdown, will follow the natural diaster that victimized so many people this past spring. Again, I am pleased that we could work out this agreement and act on my proposal to pass emergency flood aid to Minnesota and the Dakotas. With this compromise, the blame game can end and the rebuilding can continue. It is time to move forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank my colleague from Wyoming.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I was very disappointed by President Clinton's veto of the emergency aid bill, which provided some $5.5 billion in disaster relief nationwide, with a major portion of those dollars dedicated to helping to rebuild the flood-ravaged communities of my home State of Minnesota and also in the Dakotas. Having been with the President in seeing firsthand the damage and the despair that was caused by the flooding, I cannot believe that he was willing to reject our legislation to help support the people of Minnesota and the Dakotas as they rebuild their homes, communities, and their lives in the wake of the flood. Our legislation sent a very clear message that the people of Minnesota have not been forgotten by Congress during this critical time, but the President's veto suggests, however, that some in Washington need to have their memories refreshed. I am particularly disturbed by the fact that the President used as his primary excuse for vetoing the emergency flood relief bill our inclusion of a measure to protect flood victims in Minnesota and Americans everywhere from a potential Government shutdown later this year. For reasons I have repeated on this floor many times, I believe that delivering emergency aid to flood victims and keeping the Government open for business during the rebuilding process must be our twin goals at this time. Just as the emergency flood relief serves as an assurance to Minnesotans that their urgent needs will be met, our efforts to keep the Government from shutting down will also give them a guarantee that any budget squabbles that happen to pop up here in Washington will not affect our long-term efforts to help rebuild our State. And that is an assurance we can't afford to go without. By vetoing our flood relief bill, the President indicated that having a leg up in this year's budget debate is higher on his priority list than delivering flood assistance to those who need it. That was wrong, but, as we know, it cannot be changed. The people of Minnesota and the Dakotas already know how well Washington politicians can talk, and they don't want any more talk; they want some action. Stopping our work in the Senate and blocking us from taking action on anything accomplishes nothing. Positive, constructive action is what the Senate should be working on to deliver. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in working to ensure that flood relief gets out of Washington and that it gets into the hands of the people of Minnesota and the Dakotas as quickly as possible. Immediately after the veto was announced, I wrote letters to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and also Minority Leader Tom Daschle. In that letter, I proposed a compromise I believe will help speed up the enactment of the disaster relief legislation, while at the same time allowing Congress a separate vote, without any unnecessary delays, on the Government Shutdown Prevention Act. In my letters to Senators Lott and Daschle, I proposed that they consider removing the Government shutdown provision from the emergency aid legislation with a specific time agreement for debating and voting on the two issues in separate pieces of legislation. That would allow the Senate to debate and pass both the emergency flood relief bill and the Government Shutdown Prevention Act on their individual merits, away from the political haggling that has delayed action on these important bills. I was encouraged yesterday to learn of the support for my proposal by Vice President Al Gore and Senate Minority Leader Daschle. Their announcement of support clearly shows that there is room for negotiations to reconcile our differences and to deliver the flood assistance to Minnesota and the Dakotas. I have also been in negotiations with the majority leader, who expressed his intention to consider a number of different alternatives, including mine, on how best to move ahead and deliver flood relief. I am going to continue to work closely with both Senators Lott and Daschle, as well as my other colleagues in the Senate, to expedite this process. From the events of the last 2 days, I am optimistic that the two sides are closer to a reasonable settlement than anyone in the media may be suggesting. Now we must take action to bridge the gap and ensure the delivery of emergency disaster relief and the continued protection of the American people from a Government shutdown. At the very least, my proposal has opened the negotiation process to move ahead on these important issues post-veto. Again, while I am disappointed that the President chose to veto emergency flood relief, I hope that he will not shut the present window of opportunity to try to work together to find some common ground. Certainly, my constituents in Minnesota, who have already suffered so much at the hands of the flood, cannot afford inaction. As flood victims in Minnesota begin rebuilding their homes, their neighborhoods, their businesses, and their lives in the wake of the flood, they need our assurance that the Federal Government will deliver the aid that it promised. Flood victims also need to know that the Government will be there throughout the year to meet their urgent needs as their rebuilding progresses. Our efforts to keep the Government open for business will also help give Minnesotans a guarantee that budget squabbles in Washington will not affect the long-term efforts to rebuild our communities. Now, I know we may have reached a budget agreement in overall numbers and terms, but a lot of the debate will continue. And there is still the possibility of an agreement not being reached on every part of that budget this fall which could lead to a possible Government shutdown. It has happened before; it could happen again. In light of that, we want to provide assurances to these victims of the flood this spring in Minnesota and the Dakotas that they would not come up short this fall, they would not face a stop in the work that they are trying to do in rebuilding their lives. Under my compromise proposal, checks would continue to go out and contracts would be honored this year--in spite of what happens in Washington. And that is an assurance we cannot afford to go without. In announcing the President's veto, the White House spokesman said that ``Americans in need should not have to endure further delay.'' I could not agree more with that statement. The people of Minnesota and the Dakotas cannot afford for Washington's budget politics to stand in the way of the rebuilding that has already begun. Now that we have a starting point, let us move ahead and pass the emergency disaster relief we promised. And let us do it as quickly as we can. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield back my time.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, during the Budget Committee's debate on the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution, I joined with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden to introduce a Sense-of-the-Senate amendment regarding the Medicare reimbursement rate for health plans. In fact, most of my colleagues on the Budget Committee cosponsored this amendment, and I was pleased to see it incorporated into the final budget resolution passed by the Senate. Reforming the way Medicare determines the reimbursement rate for managed care plans is critical to provide Medicare equity in States like my home State of Minnesota--especially for those citizens in rural communities in my State and throughout the country. Mr. President, there are three points I would like to emphasize. First, the Medicare reimbursement rate is unfair. While every American pays the same 2.9-percent payroll tax to the Medicare trust fund, Minnesotans find themselves with the second-lowest reimbursement rates in the Nation. Every single county in Minnesota falls below the national average in terms of Medicare reimbursement. In fact, Minnesota is not alone in this category. There are 16 States in which every county is below the national average--Iowa, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Clearly, Mr. President, having this many States without a single county at the national average indicates something is wrong with the system. Second, the Medicare reimbursement formula discourages quality health care. Minnesota has consistently been recognized throughout the Nation, and perhaps the world, as one of the most innovative, efficient, cost, and quality-conscious States in terms of health care. Yet, these same traits--which should be encouraged, not discouraged--have skewed the Medicare formula against our providers and beneficiaries. We are being penalized for our success, while those less efficient States benefit-- and have no incentive to move in our direction. Mr. President, I think it is clear to everyone that efficient health care markets have reduced overutilization, eliminated unneeded hospital beds, and aimed for the highest quality service at the lowest price. Urban areas that are efficient in delivering health care--like Minneapolis, MN--decrease overutilization in the fee-for-service category of Medicare. This reduces the adjusted average per capita cost [AAPCC] which makes it difficult for health plans to remain competitive due to the lower payment. Third, the Medicare reimbursement formula discriminates against seniors who live in rural communities. These rural Americans already face fewer health care options than those living in urban centers. Because of the lower reimbursement rates health plans receive, there is no incentive for them to offer their services--let alone provide extra benefits many seniors in other States receive at no added cost. That means even fewer choices for the senior citizens living in rural Minnesota. Mr. President, no one would suggest that we take away the extra benefits seniors receive in other States; indeed, we should encourage health plans to do what they can to provide these benefits, while at the same time focusing on the need to become more efficient and cost- effective. However, what we are saying is that senior citizens living in rural America should at the very least have the opportunity to make these same choices in their health care plan. I'd like to conclude by offering an example of how the disparity in payment affects the benefits of two seniors living in different States. A Medicare beneficiary living in Blue Earth County, MN, who would like to enroll in a health plan would have none offered at the reimbursement rate of $302 a month. Not one health plan is willing to offer even basic Medicare coverage at this rate. He or she would have no choice but to enroll in the fee-for-service plan and incur higher out-of-pocket expenses. However, this same beneficiary's brother, sister or cousin living in Los Angeles County, CA would have their choice of 15 health plans offering full Medicare coverage and in addition, receive a $1,500 prescription drug benefit, $150 credit for hearing aids, and dental coverage. Why do they have these choices? Because their health plans are reimbursed $519 a month and can afford to offer the extra benefits. This disparity is not fair--and it must be fixed. Mr. President, while I am pleased the Senate has gone on record in support of my sense-of-the-Senate amendment included in the budget resolution, we need to move forward in changing the system. As we begin consideration of the reconciliation bills, I ask all my colleagues to examine this issue carefully and restore some equity in this outdated formula.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Leader. I just would like to take a few moments to address a couple concerns and questions. And as I think we are all very disappointed in the fact that yesterday President Clinton vetoed the emergency aid bill which would provide $5.5 billion in disaster relief nationwide--and that comes with a major portion of those dollars directed toward rebuilding and repairing those communities that have been devastated by floods in my home State of Minnesota and, of course, the Dakotas--our legislation I think sent a very clear message that the people of Minnesota have not been forgotten by Congress at this time. And I just really am concerned and disturbed by the fact that the President has used, as his primary excuse for vetoing the emergency flood relief bill, our inclusion of a measure that would go on to protect these very same victims this fall from what could become a manmade disaster if we do not come to some time agreement between the Congress and the President on funding legislation in the budget debates coming this fall. So for those reasons, I raised repeatedly on the floor that I believe that delivering this bill to the President is of utmost importance. And I just ask the leader if all considerations have been made or taken into account of trying to get this issue to the President again, to have him somehow--I would like to remind my colleagues who voted for this bill a week ago, that if they say these issues are so controversial, why did they then vote and approve this bill by 67 votes, as the majority leader said, last week and move this on to the President? So when they say that we are unbending and not willing to compromise on the issue, that it is ``our way or no way,'' really that is what we are hearing from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, that if it is not the President's way, it will be no way.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this afternoon to express my support for the Family Friendly Workplace Act introduced by my colleague from Missouri, Senator John Ashcroft. I join with the Nation's working men and women in thanking my friend for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor and giving us an opportunity to focus on what has become the single most precious commodity for working families in the 1990's, and that is time. Trapped between less time and greater demands, the American people are calling for more choices and flexibility in setting their work schedules. They want help in balancing the competing demands for time between their families and their jobs. When surveyed in March by Money magazine, 64 percent of the American public--and 68 percent of working women--said they would prefer time off instead of extra pay for overtime, if the law permitted such a choice. Unfortunately, the law does not allow such choices, even though dramatic changes have taken place in America since 1938, when Congress wrote the basic law governing U.S. workplaces. Six decades ago, most laborers were employed in industrial plants or on farms. Fewer than 16 percent of married women with children in school were employed outside the home. Today, service jobs are a key part of the economy where more than 75 percent of married women with school-age children now work outside the home. Many parents are under tremendous stress, often holding down more than one job while trying to raise their children. The strain can be even more pronounced in single-parent households or two-parent families where both spouses work. Is it any surprise that today's parents are spending 40 percent less time with their children than parents did just three decades ago? It seems there are not enough hours in the day anymore to always fulfill the demands of family and of work. Twenty years ago, Congress overwhelmingly approved relief for federal workers by enacting flexible work options for government employees. During House consideration of the bill, then-Representative Geraldine Ferraro said, ``Flexible schedules have helped reduce the conflicts between work and personal needs, particularly for working women and others with household responsibilities.'' Also, Representative Patricia Schroeder added, ``Flextime increases employee morale and productivity.'' Even though federal workers have enjoyed these benefits for years, the rules governing the workplace and working hours for the private sector remain frozen back in 1938. Predictably, this has created unintended burdens for millions of workers. For example, under today's law, a worker who wants to put in 45 hours one workweek in exchange for 35 hours the next--in order to attend a child's soccer game, parent-teacher conference, or doctor's appointment--must first have an employer who is willing to pay five hours of overtime pay for the 45-hour week. Because many employers cannot afford additional overtime expenses, working parents are left with two choices: One is lose five hours of pay in order to be with a child, or miss the soccer game, school award, or doctor's appointment. That is an unfair choice parents should not be forced to make. Employers who try to extend a helping hand to employees with flexible scheduling do so at the risk of fines and penalties from the Department of Labor. It is the law--you are not allowed to work 45 hours now in return for 35 hours in another week and still keep a full paycheck. President Clinton has said he understands this problem and has proposed expanding unpaid time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Unfortunately, his plan only allows leave without pay. It was designed for periods of extended leave, not for the flexibility needed to meet the daily challenges of modern family and working life. Working parents would still have to take a pay cut to be with their children. Mr. President, I firmly believe the time has come to bring our employment laws into the 1990's, and so I have proudly signed on as an original cosponsor of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. Our bill would create flexible scheduling options for working Americans, benefiting millions of hard-working women and men. First, workers under this legislation would have paid flexible leave. To create time for their families, employees could choose to work additional hours in one week, to fill in a shorter week later. Employees could bank up to 50 hours of flexible leave that can be taken with pay. Also second, employees could set 2-week schedules totaling 80 hours in any combination. For example, an employee might want every other Friday off, compensating for the day off by working 80 hours over the course of 9 days. This system has worked well for Federal employees. Third, employees could take time and one-half off, instead of overtime pay. Employees would have the option of cashing out these comp time hours for overtime pay, if they wished. It is important to note that these options are entirely voluntary and any action must be set into motion by the employee, not the employer. Your employer can't force you to take comp time if you prefer the overtime. The bill, in fact, sets stiff penalties for coercive or abusive actions by employers. While I believe the bill affords employees the necessary protections, should there be reports of widespread abuse under this legislation, I will be among the first to call for its repeal. Mr. President, an editorial published in the April 7, 1997, edition of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune raised some of these same concerns-- concerns I believe have been satisfied--and the newspaper found the premise behind the bill to be solid. The newspaper wrote: This is pretty appealing to busy Americans, many of whom would happily forgo $60 in overtime pay for the chance to spend Friday with their kids or a string of walleyes. And it is an efficient form of time management for employers who see their offices swamped with work one week but becalmed the next. The editorial concluded by saying that Clinton and Congress' Republican leadership should find a way to accommodate the needs of business and American workers in a changing economy . . . After all, the whole point is flexibility. Mr. President, I trust working parents with that flexibility because only they know what is best for their families. The flexibility is especially meaningful for the Nation's working women as well. Both Working Women and Working Mother magazines have endorsed the flextime and comptime measures in the Family Friendly Workplace Act, recognizing that 28.8 million working women stand to gain from this proposal. Times have changed dramatically since 1938, and change is long overdue. In fairness to workers and their families, and in the interest of the productivity of our economy, it is time to modernize our labor laws and give all workers the choice of flexible work options. So Mr. President, in concluding, I would like to say that the Family Friendly Workplace Act offers much-needed help for Americans striving to meet all the needs of their families. I urge the support of my colleagues, and once again I want to thank the Senator from Missouri for his leadership in bringing this bill before the Senate. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask, what is the order of the business of the Senate?

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside temporarily so I may make a statement in support of this bill.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 346.

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be brief, but I will try to talk loudly. This is a simple and straightforward amendment, and it will address just two of the weaknesses of the budget agreement; namely, big spending for the Government and small tax relief for working Americans. All it does is to require that we use half of the $225 billion of the CBO revenue windfall for tax relief and half for deficit reduction and keep nondefense discretionary spending at the cap freeze baseline level. If the $225 billion in extra money is, indeed, real, it did not fall mysteriously from the sky. It is money that belongs, first and foremost, to the American taxpayers, and it should be put to proper use. Keeping nondefense spending at freeze baseline levels would reduce total spending by only 1.5 percent over the next 5 years. If American workers are working harder and producing more, they should be able to keep it, not send it to Washington. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I should like to talk a little bit about today's budget vote and some reasons why I had to anguish over it and vote no on this budget, a budget that I hoped we could all be proud of and we could go home and really tell our constituents we had done the best job we could and we were providing an honest budget that was going to provide the things we had talked about--smaller Government, less taxes, et cetera. But, Mr. President, there is an old saying that if something seems too good to be true, then it probably is. In Washington, that scene can be taken one step further. If something seems too good to be true, then it probably is and the taxpayers are somehow going to get stuck paying for it. Such is the case with the budget resolution passed by the Senate earlier today. On paper, the plan purports to eliminate the deficit by the year 2002 by reining in Federal spending while providing significant tax relief for America's working families. I appreciate all the efforts that were made to try to reach a good budget agreement I hoped I could support, and I know how hard Senators Domenici and Lautenberg and the leadership on both sides of the aisle worked to bang out this budget. But in reality, this budget will ultimately create bigger Government, a budget that is going to demand more dollars from the taxpayers rather than giving them most of the tax relief they have been promised. It is, in other words, a deal between politicians here in Washington, not between the taxpayers and the people they elected to represent them. I have made the pursuit of a balanced budget my top priority here in the Congress, and I have always said I would support a budget plan which meets just three basic specific criteria. First, it must shrink the size and scope of Government and return money and the power that those dollars represent to the tax people. It must balance the budget by the year 2002 with steadily declining deficits each year and without the use of rosy economic scenarios. And it must provide meaningful and broadbased tax relief to working families. Now, while I would like to join the bandwagon in supporting the budget resolution, this Washington budget does not meet those protaxpayer standards. First, shrink Government and return power to the taxpayers. Balancing the budget by the year 2002 is a responsibility we must meet, but it is simply the beginning. If we intend to reduce the $5.3 trillion national debt that will remain even after the deficit is eliminated, and take power from Washington and return it to the taxpayers, we must do more than simply balance the budget. We were not elected to serve as the Nation's accountants, simply trying to make sure the numbers all add up on paper. We were elected to be policymakers--and balancing the budget is just one of these policies. We cannot lose sight of the overall goal of shrinking the size of the Washington bureaucracy and sending those dollars back to the taxpayers. Yet, this budget plan does just the opposite. It increases the size of Government by giving President Clinton even more money for pet projects than he originally requested--$74 billion more than he requested in his budget just last year, and $5 billion more than the budget he put forward in February of this year. Mr. President, instead of eliminating wasteful programs to reduce the Federal deficit, this budget plan actually creates numerous new programs, including $34 billion in new entitlement programs that will cost billions of the taxpayers hard-earned dollars. Now, if some of these new programs have merit, they should be authorized and appropriated through open hearings and through normal committee process. Total spending in this budget plan for all programs is $18 billion higher than President Clinton's budget request for the next 5 years. So where is that in shrinking the size of Government? It is increasing the size of Government. The discretionary spending for the next year alone will be $6.3 billion more than even what the President had requested back in February. Compared to the budget resolution we passed last year, this budget plan has significantly increased discretionary spending. In fiscal year 1998, discretionary spending will be $26 billion higher, $26 billion more than last year's budget, while the total discretionary spending for the next 5 years will be $194 billion higher than last year's budget request. I do not believe this is what the taxpayers had in mind when they heard the President declare that the era of big Government is over. During the last 5 years, Congress spent an additional $240 billion raising the size of Government that much over the years, but over the next 5 years we are going to increase the size of the Government another $270 billion. Again, plus the $34 billion in new spending initiatives, not just fattening some of the old programs but actually creating, giving birth to $34 billion in new programs that will have to be supported even more in the outyears. By increasing discretionary spending and creating new entitlement programs, this budget plan would ensure that big Government is not only here to stay, but that it will grow even bigger, and it will ultimately mean higher taxes in the future. In the continuing struggle between taxpayers and big Government, this budget deal takes the wrong side, and I cannot be a part of it. Second, the claim of balancing the budget with steadily declining deficits, not through rosy scenarios. One of the dirtiest little secrets in Washington is the economic hocus-pocus that goes on in the budgeting process. The Washington folks seem to believe that as long as they have a balanced budget on paper, however they can reshape the numbers to fit their goals, it does not matter how they got there because the end will justify the means. But, as everyone knows, you can't write a household budget with inflated numbers or unrealistic assumptions, and you should not be able to write a Federal budget that way as well. Any honest budget plan must reach balance through steadily declining deficits every year. The deficit must be lower each year than the preceding one. But this year's 5-year budget agreement actually increases the deficits for the first 2 years, then projects enough of a reduction in the final 2 years to reach balance. So, in other words, let's spend more now and then we will cut later. In other words, this President will be out of office, this Congress will have many new faces, probably, but they are going to let the next President and the next Congresses make the tough decisions that this Congress has turned its back on making. Mr. President, James Glassman wrote on this subject in Tuesday's Washington Post, and I found this observation to be most appropriate. He said: The way to get to smaller government is by spending less money. In fact, federal spending will rise sharply in fiscal year 1998--that's the year that starts on October 1, 1997, and the only budget year that has any real significance. Why? Because ``all the other numbers for all the other years are sheer fantasy. As anyone who runs a business knows, the only figure you can possibly control is next year's spending.'' Let me say when the budget deal was struck here in 1990 that raised taxes, part of the agreement was we will put a cap on future spending. We will not spend over this limit. In 1993, a new tax increase came into being, and along with that new tax increase came the removal of those old caps, and new caps on spending were put at a higher level. They said, all right, we will not spend over this level if you give us these tax increases now. Now, in 1997, for the 1998 budget year, the first thing that has to be done in this budget, we have to bust those spending caps again because this budget can't live within those promises, and it extends the level ever higher. What does that mean? Where does the revenue come from? It is taken from the taxpayers and the hard workers of this country. Budget proponents are claiming to balance the budget by immediately increasing the deficit by at least $23 billion, or an increase of 34 percent, and then finding the savings to eliminate the deficit in the preceding years for the following years. If this does not make sense to the American taxpayers, that is because it does not make sense at all. It is just another example of the budget tomfoolery that is going around in Washington. A budget plan must also be based on real numbers and not the inflated budget estimates that have been used in the past to justify more spending and higher taxes. Somehow the new revenues, the increased dollars that come to Washington, can never be put into the category of reducing the deficit or returning some of it in tax relief. It always goes on the other side of more spending. This budget agreement fails on that score as well as by continuing to use the inflated budget estimates of the past to mask the spending increases it contains. I cannot support a budget that uses such gimmicks simply to make the numbers add up on paper. There are two other weaknesses of the agreement I would like to point out. For quite some time we have been told repeatedly by the CBO that we needed at least $500 billion in spending cuts to achieve a balanced budget. It will take hard choices to accomplish that. However, the need to make some of the most difficult choices supposedly vanished recently when we were told that we can spend more while balancing the budget at the same time because somehow the CBO discovered $225 billion in extra money. This cannot be true. It contradicts the CBO's own recently completed study that examined the potential impact of a recession on budget projections and the goal of a balanced budget by the year 2002. In this study, the CBO examined two possible recessions, one possibly in 1998, another in the year 2000, and it concluded in both cases GDP would fall 3.7 percent below potential and would add about $100 billion to the deficit. That would make the goal of achieving a balanced budget in the year 2002 very difficult. Again, if the $225 billion in ``extra money'' is indeed real, it did not fall mysteriously from the sky. It is money that belongs first and foremost to the American taxpayers, and it should be put to proper use. The right way would be to return it to the taxpayers as tax relief and/ or designated for deficit reduction. The wrong way is to spend all that. Unfortunately, this budget resolution takes the wrong way. Now, there are some who said on the floor today only $30 billion of that $225 billion was spent. If that is true, where is the rest of it? Where did it go? If it is still there, let's put it to tax relief. But the secret is that it has been put into spending. I introduced an amendment earlier today that would have required that we use the $225 billion of the CBO revenue windfall as assumed under this budget for tax relief and deficit reduction, and to keep nondefense discretionary spending at the current freeze baseline level. My amendment called for giving back half of the $225 billion windfall to the taxpayers and then devoting the other half for deficit reduction. Again, the question is, where did that money go? Another element of my amendment called for keeping nondefense spending at a freeze baseline level. Now, baseline budgeting has been the subject of great debates, many debates, and I will not repeat the arguments today, but let me tell you briefly why this is so important. For years, Republicans criticized the use of inflated baseline budgeting because it did not reflect the actual spending levels in terms of an increase or a cut in a program's funding. By that, they always project next year's spending to already be higher so they set a new baseline. So if we were going to spend $100 this year, the new baseline next year would be $105, so that is what they work off. If we only spend $104, the claim would be we cut the budget by $1, when actually we spent $4 more. Now, there are claims in this budget that we will save $1 trillion in spending for the American taxpayer over the next 10 years. Now, that sounds great, doesn't it? If you go by the baseline budgeting, what they are really saying is, if we froze spending today, over the next 10 years we would spend about $16.2 trillion, but under the baseline budgeting, we are going to only spend $19.2, but we could have spent $20 trillion, so we are saving you $1 trillion. We could have spent $20 trillion, but by the baseline we will cut back. The difference is, we are not saving $1 trillion in spending for the taxpayers. We are adding $3 trillion in new spending over the same 10 years. It was Lee Iacocca who said if American businesses used baseline budgeting the way Congress does, ``They would throw us in jail.'' Many of us share Iacocca's views and believe inflated baseline budgeting is a fraud and it should be ended. During the past 2 years we have been telling the American people we would guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal budget by implementing zero-baseline budgeting. In other words, be honest. This is what we spend this year. This is what we propose to spend next year, not the baseline that we could have spent, but we are not going to spend quite that much, so we will save you money. That is like going to a sale and saying I am going to spend $100 to save $4. We adopted zero-baseline budgeting, and Congress has produced two balanced budgets by using the freeze baseline. But the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution abandoned this policy that we had used over the last 2 years of honest accounting by reverting to inflated baseline budgeting. In my view, this is a shift, again, in the wrong direction. Returning to the inflated baseline not only again breaks a promise to the American people but also ensures, ensures that big government will live on by allowing Washington to avoid the hard choices that it must make to eliminate wasteful programs and address our long-term fiscal imbalances. We could have met the problem head on this year. They were negotiating the budget and could have finally had to face those problems, but somehow, at the last minute, the White Knight, the CBO, with $225 billion in new projections, rode in for the rescue and Congress did not have to make any choices. They went ahead and spent all the money. Mr. President, my amendment, as you know, was defeated by the Senate this morning. But this issue is not one that is going to go away. We must be honest with the American people, and we must, again, use zero- baseline budgeting as we promised, so we can rebuild the American people's confidence in the Government and make Congress accountable to the taxpayers. No. 3, meaningful broad-based tax relief for working families. I have been the Senate's leading advocate of what we call meaningful broad- based tax relief for working families through an important measure such as the $500-per-child tax credit. Rhetorically, everyone from colleagues in Congress and the President has joined me in calling for such tax relief. Once again, a closer look at this budget agreement reveals that reality does not match the rhetoric. What does this Washington deal mean for the millions of families who would benefit from a broad-based tax cut? Proponents of the budget agreement argue that since $135 billion has been set aside on paper for tax relief, that it is good. I beg to differ, because, as with all things in Washington, there is more, or, in this case, there is less than meets the eye. For example, when they say there is $135 billion available for tax relief, they are ignoring the fact that $50 billion of this pool will be raised through higher taxes, so, in other words, to give a tax break to some we will have to raise taxes on others. We are going to have to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. So that leaves us a net tax cut of $85 billion and someone will have to pay for the $50 billion. You can bet that someone will not be Uncle Sam. Also consider the fact that $35 billion has already been promised away to the President for his narrowly targeted college education tax plan. Now, as the Senate author of the broad-based tax relief for working families represented by the $500-per-child tax credit, I am deeply troubled that this Washington budget agreement dedicates too much money for narrowly targeted tax relief at the expense of broad-based tax relief. The debate over targeted versus broad-based tax relief raises the single most important question for us today, and that is the question of who decides. Targeted tax relief says Washington will decide who is going to get a tax break, how they are going to get it, and what they have to do to get that tax break. If you, as a taxpayer, want to cut, you have to do what Washington tells you to do, whereas broad-based tax relief says taxpayers can decide. If you want to use your tax cut for higher education, go ahead, for housing, go ahead, for health care, go ahead, but tax relief should not be narrowly tailored to fit the priorities set by Washington or used as a tool for social engineering purposes. Tax relief should be as broad based as possible leaving the decisionmaking on how best to use that to the taxpayer themselves. Every household is different. Washington cannot decide. Now, while all of us support the use of tax relief for higher education expenses, we must recognize that there are many other needs faced by working families every day that can be best met by a tax cut, and it should not be up to Washington to make those decisions. But that is what this budget agreement does by reserving $35 billion from the President's college tax deduction which benefits a few. This Washington deal takes away tax relief dollars from the child tax credit which benefits the many. Finally, there are many other claims to those dollars remaining in the tax relief pool, including a capital gains tax cut, estate tax relief, IRA's and a host of other tax proposals. But if you start out with $135, you take away $50 in tax increases, you have $85 net. From those $85 million, the President has targeted tax relief of $35 billion, which leaves a pool of $50 billion. To go through some of this other child tax relief, if you are going to get the full-blown tax relief you have been promised, it would be $104 billion. If you are going to get tax gains, tax reduction, it would be $24 billion; estate tax, $18 billion; IRAs, about $11 billion. What we have is about $170 billion of tax cuts promised that somehow we are going to squeeze out of a box of $50 billion. So, in other words, somebody is going to get something, but it will be a shadow. While all these ideas have merit, the competition for this ever-shrinking pool means more bad news for those of us who care about getting tax relief. Again, we have promised working families a $500-per-child tax credit, but once you factor in all the tax hikes, special interest tax cuts, and deals that have been made a part of the budget agreement, it is easy to see that this $500-per-child tax credit could end up being nothing more than a token gesture, a promise of meaningful broad-based tax relief for working families without the dollars to back it up. In other words, working families will be squeezed out again, a broken promise, and that is something that I cannot support. Contrary to the claims of its proponents, this Washington budget deal is a retreat from the promises we made to the taxpayers for meaningful tax relief. As I have argued, the figures set-aside for tax relief are wholly inadequate to keep the promises we made to take from Washington and give back to the taxpayers--a fatal flaw in this budget agreement and another brush-off to the working families we are supposed to represent. In its analysis of the budget, the Heritage Foundation concluded that ``a credible plan to balance the Federal budget must result in a smaller Government that costs less and leaves much more money in the pockets of working Americans. The current budget deal not only fails these important tests, but in many cases would implement policies that are worse than taking no action at all.'' The medical profession is guided by the doctrine of ``First, do no harm.'' The American people should demand the same of their Government as it establishes the Nation's spending and tax priorities through the budget process. A budget that fails to meet even the most basic tests of honesty and common sense--and that may actually leave the Nation in a fiscal situation more perilous than the one we face today--is a budget the American taxpayers will not support. Congress and the President can, and must, do better. In closing, let me add a final thought about this so-called balanced budget resolution. As I stand here in this Chamber, on a day when I should be proudly telling the taxpayers of Minnesota that Congress has finally heard their pleas and produced an honest budget that reduces the size of government and offers meaningful tax relief, I am saddened and angry that I cannot. The budget resolution passed by the Senate today is not the budget I was elected to carry out. It is not the budget a great many of my colleagues were elected to carry out. It is a budget built of concession, not of compromise, of illusion, not of reality, of whispers, not of boldness. It is a budget built like a house of cards, without a foundation, and held together by nothing but wishes and assumptions. This may be a so-called agreement between the Republicans and Democrats in Washington, but it is not the budget agreement we promised the taxpayers. It is a budget Congress hopes America will like. As you see more of the details, it will be one they don't. For this reason, it is a budget I deeply regret I cannot in good conscience support.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Daschle, Johnson, Grassley, Harkin, and Wellstone as a proud cosponsor of legislation authorizing the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System. This much-needed legislation will help provide a long-term, high-quality water supply from the Missouri River to over 180,000 individuals in portions of Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa. For too long, and to the detriment of community development, residents of this region have been deprived of a sustainable water resource. In light of Minnesota's reputation as the ``land of 10,000 lakes,'' it might come as a surprise to hear my home state described as being desperately short on water supplies. The southwestern corner of the state, however, is geographically very different from the rest of Minnesota. Rock County, which would be served by the Lewis and Clark system, is the only county in Minnesota without a natural lake. Communities within the proposed water system are now served by shallow aquifers highly susceptible to drought, leading most of these communities to impose severe watering restrictions. The constant deterioration of these aquifers is evidenced through the detection of ever-increasing nitrate levels that threaten the safety of current drinking water. Moreover, increasing federal regulations have imposed expensive, unfunded mandates on communities seeking to deliver clean and healthy water to their residents. This situation has forced communities throughout the region to aggressively explore alternative water supplies. Since 1989, the community of Worthington, Minnesota has spent between $50,000 to $75,000 annually searching for another source of water, all without success. The nearby community of Luverne, Minnesota has experienced the same disappointing results despite its significant expenditures. It is little wonder struggling communities across this region have joined together to strongly support the Lewis and Clark proposal. Bill Weber, the distinguished mayor of Luverne, Minnesota stated: ``It made sense to us to combine our financial assets in building one system that can provide an alternative supply of drinking water for 22 systems. The only other alternative was for each of us to continue as we have in the past, exploring more costly alternatives that only helped one at a time and alternatives, which in the case of Luverne appear to be nonexistent.'' Greg Degroot, President of Worthington Public Utilities, wrote that the system ``will provide our community with an alternative source of water that will give us some protection in the event of the loss of our existing water source and will also provide the additional water that is necessary for our community to continue to prosper and grow.'' Mr. President, under our legislation, local communities will come together with the affected states and the federal government to form a strong, financial partnership, thereby ensuring an adequate, safe water supply while reducing the costs to the American taxpayers. In fact, with our revised proposal, the city of Sioux Falls, South Dakota--by far the largest user of the proposed system--will pay 50% of the construction costs for its share of Lewis and Clark water. Mr. President, providing healthy water to our communities is one of the most basic functions of the government. It is not a partisan issue, and therefore I am proud to join with a bipartisan group of my colleagues and the Governors of Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa in supporting this bill. We believe our legislation to be the best, most cost-effective answer to a severe and growing problem. The time to enact this bipartisan legislation is now. As a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I look forward to working with the distinguished Chairman, Senator Murkowski; Senator Johnson, the primary sponsor of this legislation and a Committee member; the rest of our colleagues; and the Clinton Administration in providing much-needed relief to our communities. They deserve nothing less.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am proud to be a leading co-sponsor of legislation introduced today with my friend and colleague, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont. The Earned Income Credit (EIC) Fairness Act of 1997 is a direct response to back-door efforts by the Internal Revenue Service to raise revenue on the backs of family farmers. This legislation simply clarifies the intent of Congress by preserving this important tax credit for our Nation's dairy farmers. I want to thank Senator Jeffords for his leadership on this issue. My colleague from Vermont and I have differed from time to time on what is best for the Nation's dairy industry in the way of federal dairy policy. However, I have always had a profound respect for his hard work and genuine commitment to Vermont's dairy farmers. They have in Senator Jeffords a tireless advocate in the U.S. Senate. I also want to commend Mike Foley, a teacher and dairy farmer from Melrose, MN for bringing this issue to my attention. Like other problems created by IRS misinterpretations of Congressional intent-- including the alternative minimum tax [AMT] and the self-employment tax problems--few knew of the EIC problem and the hardship it would ultimately cause. Thanks to Mike, we now have the opportunity to restore the IRS to its proper role of carrying out current laws instead of creating new ones. Mr. President, unless Congress acts on this legislation, the Nation's dairy farmers will be forced to pay $76 million in taxes they were never intended to pay. In effect, this is an agency-created $76 million tax hike on hard working, generally low-income, dairy producers. For dairy farmers in Minnesota, the tax hike would amount to about $6 million. As a boy who grew up on a dairy farm, I know all too well how hard dairy farmers must work to make ends meet. Long hours. Early mornings. Late nights. The vacations--even for a day--which a lot of us take for granted are unthinkable for most of our dairy producers. This is especially true for the dairy producers who would be hit hardest by the new IRS-imposed tax hike. This is wrong. Wrong because the IRS has no business raising taxes by agency fiat. And, wrong because of the severe hardship the tax hike would impose on our Nation's dairy producers. During consideration of the 1996 Farm Bill, we promised our farmers long overdue tax relief, regulatory relief, improved risk management and research, and free and fair trade. My request of the administration, particularly the IRS, is simple. If you don't want to help keep this promise to America's farmers, simply step aside and at least don't hinder those of us who do. I urge my colleagues to give the EIC Fairness Act of 1997 speedy consideration and passage.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Daschle, Johnson, Grassley, Harkin, and Wellstone as a proud cosponsor of legislation authorizing the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System. This much-needed legislation will help provide a long-term, high-quality water supply from the Missouri River to over 180,000 individuals in portions of Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa. For too long, and to the detriment of community development, residents of this region have been deprived of a sustainable water resource. In light of Minnesota's reputation as the ``land of 10,000 lakes,'' it might come as a surprise to hear my home state described as being desperately short on water supplies. The southwestern corner of the state, however, is geographically very different from the rest of Minnesota. Rock County, which would be served by the Lewis and Clark system, is the only county in Minnesota without a natural lake. Communities within the proposed water system are now served by shallow aquifers highly susceptible to drought, leading most of these communities to impose severe watering restrictions. The constant deterioration of these aquifers is evidenced through the detection of ever-increasing nitrate levels that threaten the safety of current drinking water. Moreover, increasing federal regulations have imposed expensive, unfunded mandates on communities seeking to deliver clean and healthy water to their residents. This situation has forced communities throughout the region to aggressively explore alternative water supplies. Since 1989, the community of Worthington, Minnesota has spent between $50,000 to $75,000 annually searching for another source of water, all without success. The nearby community of Luverne, Minnesota has experienced the same disappointing results despite its significant expenditures. It is little wonder struggling communities across this region have joined together to strongly support the Lewis and Clark proposal. Bill Weber, the distinguished mayor of Luverne, Minnesota stated: ``It made sense to us to combine our financial assets in building one system that can provide an alternative supply of drinking water for 22 systems. The only other alternative was for each of us to continue as we have in the past, exploring more costly alternatives that only helped one at a time and alternatives, which in the case of Luverne appear to be nonexistent.'' Greg Degroot, President of Worthington Public Utilities, wrote that the system ``will provide our community with an alternative source of water that will give us some protection in the event of the loss of our existing water source and will also provide the additional water that is necessary for our community to continue to prosper and grow.'' Mr. President, under our legislation, local communities will come together with the affected states and the federal government to form a strong, financial partnership, thereby ensuring an adequate, safe water supply while reducing the costs to the American taxpayers. In fact, with our revised proposal, the city of Sioux Falls, South Dakota--by far the largest user of the proposed system--will pay 50% of the construction costs for its share of Lewis and Clark water. Mr. President, providing healthy water to our communities is one of the most basic functions of the government. It is not a partisan issue, and therefore I am proud to join with a bipartisan group of my colleagues and the Governors of Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa in supporting this bill. We believe our legislation to be the best, most cost-effective answer to a severe and growing problem. The time to enact this bipartisan legislation is now. As a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I look forward to working with the distinguished Chairman, Senator Murkowski; Senator Johnson, the primary sponsor of this legislation and a Committee member; the rest of our colleagues; and the Clinton Administration in providing much-needed relief to our communities. They deserve nothing less.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I also just would like to offer an amendment and lay it aside.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am proud to be a leading co-sponsor of legislation introduced today with my friend and colleague, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont. The Earned Income Credit (EIC) Fairness Act of 1997 is a direct response to back-door efforts by the Internal Revenue Service to raise revenue on the backs of family farmers. This legislation simply clarifies the intent of Congress by preserving this important tax credit for our Nation's dairy farmers. I want to thank Senator Jeffords for his leadership on this issue. My colleague from Vermont and I have differed from time to time on what is best for the Nation's dairy industry in the way of federal dairy policy. However, I have always had a profound respect for his hard work and genuine commitment to Vermont's dairy farmers. They have in Senator Jeffords a tireless advocate in the U.S. Senate. I also want to commend Mike Foley, a teacher and dairy farmer from Melrose, MN for bringing this issue to my attention. Like other problems created by IRS misinterpretations of Congressional intent-- including the alternative minimum tax [AMT] and the self-employment tax problems--few knew of the EIC problem and the hardship it would ultimately cause. Thanks to Mike, we now have the opportunity to restore the IRS to its proper role of carrying out current laws instead of creating new ones. Mr. President, unless Congress acts on this legislation, the Nation's dairy farmers will be forced to pay $76 million in taxes they were never intended to pay. In effect, this is an agency-created $76 million tax hike on hard working, generally low-income, dairy producers. For dairy farmers in Minnesota, the tax hike would amount to about $6 million. As a boy who grew up on a dairy farm, I know all too well how hard dairy farmers must work to make ends meet. Long hours. Early mornings. Late nights. The vacations--even for a day--which a lot of us take for granted are unthinkable for most of our dairy producers. This is especially true for the dairy producers who would be hit hardest by the new IRS-imposed tax hike. This is wrong. Wrong because the IRS has no business raising taxes by agency fiat. And, wrong because of the severe hardship the tax hike would impose on our Nation's dairy producers. During consideration of the 1996 Farm Bill, we promised our farmers long overdue tax relief, regulatory relief, improved risk management and research, and free and fair trade. My request of the administration, particularly the IRS, is simple. If you don't want to help keep this promise to America's farmers, simply step aside and at least don't hinder those of us who do. I urge my colleagues to give the EIC Fairness Act of 1997 speedy consideration and passage.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize National Emergency Medical Services Week and the heroic and courageous work our emergency medical service providers perform everyday. As an author of the Emergency Medical Services Efficiency Act, I have had the opportunity to meet with many EMS providers both in Minnesota and Washington to hear firsthand the problems they face every day--and their suggestions on how those problems can be resolved. The meetings were constructive, and we identified specific areas of concern and ways in which Congress can address them. I hope that the Emergency Medical Services Efficiency Act will serve as a blueprint for helping these dedicated public servants make the system more efficient. Mr. President, emergency medical services have come a long way since the 1860's when the first civilian ambulance service was begun in Cincinnati and New York City. Now we have sophisticated medical equipment on ambulances around the country, and the American people have come to rely on the readiness, efficiency, and quick response of the EMS system. Yet many Americans--including Members of Congress--take these crucial services for granted. Mr. President, I have a great admiration and respect for those who dedicate their time and talents to the emergency care profession, whether as a career or through volunteering. It's a field that offers a great many rewards. And yet along with those rewards often come great challenges. EMS professionals are often thrust into dangerous situations--situations that set their profession apart from most any other 9-to-5 job. It's a difficult, sometimes terrifying time to be part of the public health and safety professions. I'm reminded of a frightening example of the terrors EMS professionals face that happened here in Washington just 5 months ago when a paramedic team was attacked by a gunman. Emergency workers were transporting a shooting victim to the hospital when the gunman stormed the ambulance, killing the victim and wounding one of the paramedics. That followed another violent incident just a month earlier, when a man who had been shot was stalked by his attacker to the hospital and was fatally wounded as he sought treatment. Despite these risks, there are many thousands of Americans who serve their communities with determination and compassion as paramedics and emergency medical service personnel. Last night, they honored those who exemplify the best of their profession as ``Stars of Life.'' I was asked to speak to their group, but was unable to attend due to the Budget Committee's markup of the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution. I was disappointed I could not attend so I wanted to take the time to recognize their achievements on the Senate floor today. Mr. President, at this time I ask that the names of this year's ``Stars of Life'' be printed in the Record following my remarks. Far too often, Washington fails to respond to pressing concerns until they become a crisis. We cannot wait for a crisis to occur before we respond to the needs of our emergency medical system. It's ironic that we expect so much from our EMS providers and yet, when they seek assistance, we continue to ignore their 9-1-1 call for help. In recognizing and celebrating National EMS Week, we should all take the time to congratulate the ``Stars of Life,'' and their colleagues, who receive no special recognition and yet answer every call, every day, because they have chosen to serve. The names follow: Stars of Life Recipients 1997 Irene Acquisto, NY. Mike (Dewey) Albritton, MS. Josh Alger, MI. Thomas Anderson, CT. Jim Bard, OR. Robert Barmore, KY. Sue Beals, ME. Trish Beckwith, NV. Walter Bedward, NJ. Jeffrey Blank, WA. Charles Blattner, CA. Andy Bowersox, IN. Terry Bracy, AR. Ken Bradford, CA. Tim Braithwaite, SD. Bernie Callahan, PA. Marty Carlson, OR. Bryan Clark, GA. Mike Coburn, NV. Keith Cooper, PA. David Curran, RI. Virginia Davis, CA. Vito DePietro, PA. Jeffrey DeVine, MA. George Drum, AZ. Dave Elle, OR. David Ellis, MO. Linda Emery, OH. Clarence Ervin, MI. Ramona Fincher, LA. Wayne Gilbert, MA. Tom Gottschalk, MI. Dave Green, NY. Robert Gregory, CT. Julian Guerrero, TX. Marlene Guillory, LA. David Hahn, IL. Paul Haynie, CA. Margaret Heckmann, IL. Leigh Hennig, NY. Victor Hoffer, OR. Lynda Hoffman, NY. Gregory Hogan, MA. Dennis Hogges, GA. Sharon Houghton, MO. Shane Husted, MI. Christopher Imm, NY. Brent James, NE. Charles Jarmon, CT. Wilson Jean, FL. Leonard Joseph, NY. Shelly Kaczynski, MI. James Lanier, FL. Tony Lee, MA. Carl Lind, AZ. Thomas Lindgren, MA. William Lindsay, OK. Alvin Lynn, VA. Tonia Mack, MA. Steve Madrid, AZ. Quijuan Maloof, CA. Michael Mangan, MD. Kerry Mariano, PA. Donald Marsh, MI. Greg Martino, CO. Vicky McClanahan, TN. Ed (Hunter) McKeever, CO. Chris Mixon, LA. Edward Moser, NY. Jim Neal, ME. Rella Neal, ME. Keith Overcash, NC. Cheryl Pasquarella, MN. Thinh Pham, LA. Ron Piel, FL. John Piombo, FL. Maye Pittman, CA. Suzanne Pluskett, CA. Judy Rains, VA. Richie Ray, TX. John Rivas, FL. Jodi Roberts, OK. Stephen Roberts Jr., TN. Earl Ruberts, NJ. Todd Sadler, OH. Orlando Segarra, FL. Mia Shelton, NY. Penny Shuler, GA. Todd Sims, NC. Randy Sizelove, IN. Mary Sloan, GA. Carroll Smeltzer, AR. Brent (Michael) Smith, TX. Robert L. Smith Jr., NC. John Sotero, CT. Todd Stockford, MI. Regina Stoneham, TX. Matt Syverson, AZ. Steve Thurman, PA. Linda Tracey, NY. Kevin Waddington, CO. Beth Wally, NC. Greg Ware, LA. Courtney Williamson, GA. Kevin Winte, CA. Bill (Ronald) Wright, DE. Destry Young, TN.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I rise to proudly acknowledge the contribution that my home State of Minnesota made to the recently dedicated memorial to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. On May 2, 1997, over 6,000 people joined President Clinton beside the tidal basin midway between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials to dedicate a memorial to our Nation's 32d President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As those present at the dedication walked among the granite walls, waterfalls, and bronze sculptures, they were witnessing a piece of history which Minnesota's own Cold Spring Granite Co. helped make possible. Minnesota's role in the Roosevelt Memorial began in 1975 when designer Lawrence Halprin chose Cold Spring Granite for the walls and floor of the memorial. Located just south of the Granite City of St. Cloud in central Minnesota, Cold Spring Granite Co. provided the more than 6,000 tons of granite that adorns the memorial. Started in 1898 by Henry N. Alexander, the Cold Spring Granite Co. has grown into one of the world's largest granite quarrying and fabrication operations. Today the Cold Spring Granite Co. is headed by Patrick D. Alexander, the grandson of Henry Alexander, who oversees a company of over 1,400 employees with five fabrication facilities and 28 quarries located throughout North America. Mr. President, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial is expected to draw as many as 2 million visitors each year. I am pleased that those who visit this site will see not only a memorial to one of our Nation's most remembered Presidents, but also a testament to the hard work and patriotism of the men and women of Minnesota, particularly the dedicated employees of the Cold Spring Granite Co.